Karl Rove joins Fox News Channel as a contributor

[lily]

The perfect addition to make them fair and balanced. (http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/02/04/afx4611595.html):lmao:

Karl Rove joins Fox News Channel as a contributor
02.04.08, 2:00 PM ET



SAN FRANCISCO (Thomson Financial) - News Corp.'s Fox News said Monday Karl
Rove, senior adviser and former deputy chief of staff to President George W.
Bush, has joined the channel as a contributor.

Rove will make his debut during Fox News Channel's coverage of the Super
Tuesday primaries on Feb. 5, Fox said.

[Lucky13]

Oh, this is too good.
You know, you can't make this stuff up.

I'm sure it will add to Fox's credibility.:clapper:
pat

[cronic]

The perfect addition to make them fair and balanced. (http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/02/04/afx4611595.html):lmao:

Karl Rove joins Fox News Channel as a contributor
02.04.08, 2:00 PM ET



sheesh...thats gonna make things fair and balanced..lol.. oh well.. atleast I now have one more reason not to watch fox besides Bill O'Reilly...

[apdst]

I'm sure it will add to Fox's credibility

When you consider his track record getting people elected, he'll make a great political contributer.

[Lucky13]

When you consider his track record getting people elected, he'll make a great political contributer

:lmao:Yeah, but look at WHO he gets elected. And he does seem to have a teeny, tiny credibility problem.
But maybe not so much for Fox.
pat

[apdst]

Yeah, but look at WHO he gets elected.

And look WHO he beat out to get them elected, too! :madlaugh:

[preservanation]

I'm sure it will add to Fox's credibility

When you consider his track record getting people elected, he'll make a great political contributer.
I'm very excited about hearing his analysis and pov.
I think it will be fascinating.

As far as the libs are conserned, this is not uncommon.
CNN has employed Carville, Begala, Stephanopoulos, ect, CNBC has Mathews, all Dem political strategists and none seem to have a problem with that.
I would think the left would be interested on how Rove beat them for eight years and try to learn from it, but their partisanship blinds them.
I don't see him being an overt partisan hack such as Carvill and Begala, but just a source of brilliant analysis

[Grizz]

I don't see him being an overt partisan hack such as Carvill and Begala, but just a source of brilliant analysis

I wouldn't disagree that he could be a "brilliant" analyst, but after that comes the spin, something at which is is a master. Then again, we are talking Fox News, the network of the RNC.

[preservanation]

OK, Grizz.
I have faith that you are smart enough to see the difference between spin and analysis.
Do you watch FNC?
Welcome!

[AlanC]

And I suppose that everyone is equally outraged that George Stephanopolus has his own show as well.... right? I mean if we are objecting to political hacks having access to shows discussing political topics it would only make sense to get rid of all of them, right? Like CNN has done by never giving Carvelle a microphone?

I'm sure you all were as disgusted at those instances of former political advisers to presidents being used to work as analysts, right?

[AnnEsthesia]

Pres, I am beginning to wonder what happened to you. Why all of a sudden are all of your posts about how "all libs" and "the libs" ? You used to be more moderate and fair-minded. Now you are turning into a neocon borg.

Come back to the light!

[Truth Detector]

I'm sure it will add to Fox's credibility

When you consider his track record getting people elected, he'll make a great political contributer.
I'm very excited about hearing his analysis and pov.
I think it will be fascinating.

As far as the libs are conserned, this is not uncommon.
CNN has employed Carville, Begala, Stephanopoulos, ect, CNBC has Mathews, all Dem political strategists and none seem to have a problem with that.
I would think the left would be interested on how Rove beat them for eight years and try to learn from it, but their partisanship blinds them.
I don't see him being an overt partisan hack such as Carvill and Begala, but just a source of brilliant analysis

Outstanding commentary as usual.

The only thing more profound about democrat denial is their blatant hypocrisy. What is apparent about the Leftist Socialist mindset is that their idea of fair and balanced only includes people who think like they do.

At least on Fox you do get BOTH views rather than the narrow one sided "drive-by" views provided by the likes of CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC. [hr]
And I suppose that everyone is equally outraged that George Stephanopolus has his own show as well.... right? I mean if we are objecting to political hacks having access to shows discussing political topics it would only make sense to get rid of all of them, right? Like CNN has done by never giving Carvelle a microphone?

I'm sure you all were as disgusted at those instances of former political advisers to presidents being used to work as analysts, right?


Bravo! Their silence is deafening. :clapper:

[Easy90]

Yeah, it's kind of funny how our Left leaning friends are so comfortable with the 95% liberal political media...but it's a "cred" problem if some Righty gets asked to comment. LOL! And MSNBC, CNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS...etc, etc..well...they're all "fair and balanced." Talk about your hypocrisy!

[Truth Detector]

Yeah, it's kind of funny how our Left leaning friends are so comfortable with the 95% liberal political media...but it's a "cred" problem if some Righty gets asked to comment. LOL! And MSNBC, CNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS...etc, etc..well...they're all "fair and balanced." Talk about your hypocrisy!


I always watch Tim Russert Meet the Press every Sunday and his idea of a balanced panel is usually three liberals and one quasi conservative.

I love you Tim, but you need to "balance" your panels.
:peace:

[Buck Laser]

Pres, I am beginning to wonder what happened to you. Why all of a sudden are all of your posts about how "all libs" and "the libs" ? You used to be more moderate and fair-minded. Now you are turning into a neocon borg.

Come back to the light!

Ann, that's why I quit reading Pres's posts. As I saw it, it was always "the libs this" and the "libs that..." I just got sick and tired of it. I like him much better now that he's on ignore.

[brien]

Alan C hits the proverbial nail right on the head. Excellent pov.

Furthermore, it matters naught to some around here, that FNC beats CNN, CNBC, and other cable news networks, combined in the ratings. :madlaugh:

[Grizz]

OK, Grizz.
I have faith that you are smart enough to see the difference between spin and analysis.
Do you watch FNC?
Welcome!


From the owner on down, Fox is quite clear about their goals, and "Fair and Balanced" isn't among them. So, the answer is, no, I don't watch Fox. Fav news show - The News Hour on PBS. After that it would be Meet the Press and occasionally ABC Nightly News. Local news stations aren't much good except for weather and traffic reports. I much prefer reading - NY Times, Atlanta Journal Constitution, assorted news magazines and various tidbits tossed up on internet chat boards.

Thanks for the welcome and I'm sure we'll have much to discuss.

[Easy90]

Pres, I am beginning to wonder what happened to you. Why all of a sudden are all of your posts about how "all libs" and "the libs" ? You used to be more moderate and fair-minded. Now you are turning into a neocon borg.

Come back to the light!


What an incredibly odd post from someone with a 'hate' avatar like yours. You really don't see that, do you? Maybe "Pres" is just "proud to be everything you "hate." Perhaps your opinions are the ones that are radical and less than "fair-minded." :dizzy:

[brien]

Some network newscasters are members of the Council on Foreign Relations:


http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=641



The world-government-promoting Council of Foreign Relations has intensified its grip on television news by enlisting as members several additional nationally known commentators. In response to a directive to include more women as members, the Council has inducted Paula Zahn, Lesley Stahl and Judy Woodruff...

These three now join Diane Sawyer and Barbara Walters in the CFR where each can be counted on to present the establishment line on the important news reaching Americans. They will, of course, be following the lead set by veteran CFR members Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, Frank Sesno and Jim Lehrer.

Americans who believe they are getting straight news reporting must begin to realize that this is surely not the case.

These individuals, of course, are on-air personalities. Each of the corporations for whom they read the news is also led by additional members of the Council on Foreign Relations. [/quote]

So much for impartial newscasters.


There are some conspiracy theories on them.

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Council_Foreign_Relations.htm

If one group is effectively in control of national governments and multinational corporations; promotes world government through control of media, foundation grants, and education; and controls and guides the issues of the day; then they control most options available. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and the financial powers behind it, have done all these things, and promote the "New World Order", as they have for over seventy years.

The CFR is the promotional arm of the Ruling Elite in the United States of America. Most influential politicians, academics and media personalities are members, and it uses its influence to infiltrate the New World Order into American life. Its' "experts" write scholarly pieces to be used in decision making, the academics expound on the wisdom of a united world, and the media members disseminate the message.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44841

Then there is this opinion on them:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44841

Lou Dobbs, CNN Anchor: Good evening, everybody. Tonight, an astonishing proposal to expand our borders to incorporate Mexico and Canada and simultaneously further diminish U.S. sovereignty. Have our political elites gone mad? We'll have a special report. Blood ... Now, incredibly, a panel sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations wants the United States to focus not on the defense of our own borders, but rather create what effectively would be a common border that includes Mexico and Canada."

Christine Romans, CNN Correspondent (voice-over): On Capitol Hill, testimony calling for Americans to start thinking like citizens of North America and treat the U.S., Mexico and Canada like one big country.


For constitutionalists like myself, this is treason talk and Lou Dobbs should be thanked by the American people for exposing this evil plan. The fact that it is even being discussed in the U.S. Congress is putrid. The Council on Foreign Relations is an organization whose mission is to redefine American policy and slide this republic into a one-world government ? a nightmare beyond what most Americans can't even imagine. Rear Adm. Chester Ward was a member of the CFR for 16 years and later warned the American people as to the true intentions of this treasonous operation:


The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common ? they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty of the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world-banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government.


Former Congressman John R. Rarick warned:


The CFR, dedicated to one-world government, financed by a number of the largest tax-exempt foundations, and wielding such power and influence over our lives in the areas of finance, business, labor, military, education and mass communication media, should be familiar to every American concerned with good government and with preserving and defending the U.S. Constitution and our free-enterprise system. Yet, the nation's right to know machinery ? the news media ? usually so aggressive in exposures to inform our people, remain conspicuously silent when it comes to the CFR, its members and their activities.

The CFR is the establishment. Not only does it have influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also finances and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below, to justify the high-level decisions for converting the United States from a sovereign constitutional republic into a servile member of a one-world dictatorship.

Members:

Who are some of the past and present members of this anti-American operation? Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Porter Goss, Alan Greenspan, John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, Gen. Richard B. Myers, Henry Hyde, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George Bush Sr., Sandra Day O'Connor, George Soros, Christopher Dodd, Diane Feinstein, Gerald Ford, Bill Frist, Newt Gingrich, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Katherine Harris, Teresa Heinz, Antonia Hernandez ? President of Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Gen. John P. Jumper ? current Air Force chief of staff, Joseph Lieberman, John McCain, Rupert Murdock, David Rockefeller, Diane Sawyer and Tony Snow.

Strange bedfellows indeed...

MOre on the CFR:


http://www.prolognet.qc.ca/clyde/cfr.html

there are two groups of elite men and women in particular that most American people do not know about, but which are a clear threat and danger to the freedom of the American people. These are the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission.

Right now the United States is completely under the control of those who run these two organizations (David Rockefeller in particular). It is therefore important to understand these organizations if we wish to understand what has been taking place in the United States since the early 1900’s.

The resource material I am using that explains in depth what these two organizations are all about was written by Jack Newell and Devvy Kidd ("Why A Bankrupt America?", Project Liberty, P.O. Box 741075, Arvada, CO 80006-9075). Please allow me to share the main ideas with you.

Judge for yourself.:ponder:

[AnnEsthesia]

Pres, I am beginning to wonder what happened to you. Why all of a sudden are all of your posts about how "all libs" and "the libs" ? You used to be more moderate and fair-minded. Now you are turning into a neocon borg.

Come back to the light!


What an incredibly odd post from someone with a 'hate' avatar like yours. You really don't see that, do you? Maybe "Pres" is just "proud to be everything you "hate." Perhaps your opinions are the ones that are radical and less than "fair-minded." :dizzy:


First of all, it is a signature, not an avatar. Second, it is called humor. Try to keep up. As for my opinions, perhaps you should get to know me and know my opinions before you start labeling me, lol.

[Elrathin]

Alan C hits the proverbial nail right on the head. Excellent pov.

Furthermore, it matters naught to some around here, that FNC beats CNN, CNBC, and other cable news networks, combined in the ratings. :madlaugh:


I wouldn't use ratings as something to be proud of necessarily. American reality T.V. puts all those News Channels to Shame anyway in ratings. People like watching dumb and stupid things, so saying that FNC has good ratings isn't a real compliment LOL.

[cronic]

First of all, it is a signature, not an avatar. Second, it is called humor. Try to keep up. As for my opinions, perhaps you should get to know me and know my opinions before you start labeling me, lol.


Your Awesome Ann hugz,, I think all of us should have the sig we want.. its called freedom of speech.. Humor rulez all.. and I love your opinions



I wouldn't use ratings as something to be proud of necessarily. American reality T.V. puts all those News Channels to Shame anyway in ratings. People like watching dumb and stupid things, so saying that FNC has good ratings isn't a real compliment LOL.


Yep.. totally.. I'm one of them.. haha.. from flav o flav to tila to bad girls to janice dickinson's model show..

[hr]
About this "Fair and Balanced" now.. Im just going to put it out there and wait for the hurricane.. I used to watched the most fair and balanced news/radio show ever.. till it was takin off the air.. Don Imus was the man to go to for news, and political info not to mention good music and interviews.. ( especally the hulk hogans ones ) topped off with Humor!!![hr]
See the sig?.. please tread lightly...lol

[Easy90]

"First of all, it is a signature, not an avatar. Second, it is called humor. Try to keep up. As for my opinions, perhaps you should get to know me and know my opinions before you start labeling me, lol." AnnEsthesia

SO...telling people you're proud to be everything they hate is "humor?" I'm probably as "right wing" as you are "left wing"...but I doubt you know what I "hate." But perhaps I should tell you. Reading your "signature" reminds me that it just so happens, that one of the things I "hate" most is "stupid people."

And as for your opinions, given that you've expressed them over 3,225 times on this forum...I think it's pretty clear what they are. Boy is it clear! LOL! Again, what I think is odd is how you feel it's fine for YOU to be opinionated in a left-wing way...but you're admonishing people who have a less radical outlook as being "less that fair minded." LOL! As for "labels"..your "signature" labels you btw....so don't blame me for taking it at face value.

[lily]

Yeah, it's kind of funny how our Left leaning friends are so comfortable with the 95% liberal political media...but it's a "cred" problem if some Righty gets asked to comment. LOL! And MSNBC, CNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS...etc, etc..well...they're all "fair and balanced." Talk about your hypocrisy!


You see the difference in this is they don't have banners and say every five minutes that they are "fair and balanced".

There's also a reason Bush, Cheney, Condi and all the others mainly give their interviews on Fox News.......they know they won't be asked the hard questions.

[Fishingriver]

I'm sure it will add to Fox's credibility

When you consider his track record getting people elected, he'll make a great political contributer.


I agree. He did a great job of getting the Democrats elected in 2006.

[preservanation]

OK, Grizz.
I have faith that you are smart enough to see the difference between spin and analysis.
Do you watch FNC?
Welcome!


From the owner on down, Fox is quite clear about their goals, and "Fair and Balanced" isn't among them. So, the answer is, no, I don't watch Fox. Fav news show - After that it would be Meet the Press and occasionally ABC Nightly News. Local news stations aren't much good except for weather and traffic reports. I much prefer reading - Atlanta Journal Constitution, assorted news magazines and various tidbits tossed up on internet chat boards.

The News Hour on PBS. ah, there's a forum with balanced guests...left, lefter, and leftist.

NY Times, Fair and balanced?
David Brooks makes Micheal Moore look like Phyllis Schlafly.

Most well rounded libs I know have no problem watching FNC.
And some even like it.
Though they don't agree with some of the right wing commentators such as Hannity, their analysis is sound reporting is good and they always present the other side..
I like FNC but don't watch it exclusively.
I would recommend broadening your horizons and opening your mind.
Spite has never accomplished much.[hr]What I would love to see is Murdoch actually create a right-wing no holes bared conservative network, such as the left accuses the FNC of being. Hooo Boy!
It's always the people who don't watch FOX who are the most biased against it.

[Grizz]

The News Hour on PBS. ah, there's a forum with balanced guests...left, lefter, and leftist.

Actually, from what I've read, thir reporting is about as 'fair and balanced' as you'll find on the air these days. Just because their guests can have rational discussions without raising their voices or screaming at one another does not make them a poor source.

Most well rounded libs I know have no problem watching FNC.
And some even like it.

If it's any consolation, I don't pay any more attention to CNN or MSNBC. I just don't have the time. However, given the choice, Fox would be at the bottom of news shows I'd watch simply because of their stated position on slanting the news.

[preservanation]

Fox would be at the bottom of news shows I'd watch simply because of their stated position on slanting the news.
When did the Fox News Channel state that they slant the news?

[Easy90]

"You see the difference in this is they don't have banners and say every five minutes that they are "fair and balanced." (Lily)

Ah....so THAT'S the difference. They remind viewers that most of what their rivals are spewing is NOT "fair and balanced." I can see how libs would be offended... Thanks. :ponder:

[AnnEsthesia]

"First of all, it is a signature, not an avatar. Second, it is called humor. Try to keep up. As for my opinions, perhaps you should get to know me and know my opinions before you start labeling me, lol." AnnEsthesia

SO...telling people you're proud to be everything they hate is "humor?" I'm probably as "right wing" as you are "left wing"...but I doubt you know what I "hate." But perhaps I should tell you. Reading your "signature" reminds me that it just so happens, that one of the things I "hate" most is "stupid people."

And as for your opinions, given that you've expressed them over 3,225 times on this forum...I think it's pretty clear what they are. Boy is it clear! LOL! Again, what I think is odd is how you feel it's fine for YOU to be opinionated in a left-wing way...but you're admonishing people who have a less radical outlook as being "less that fair minded." LOL! As for "labels"..your "signature" labels you btw....so don't blame me for taking it at face value.


It is hardly my problem if you have an inability to understand humor. As for my being so left wing... if you actually had a clue and not just a sack of hot air, you would know that I am more conservative on some issues than many of the conservatives here.

But yea, rant on, little man. Rant on. ;)

[potter]

The only thing more profound about democrat denial is their blatant hypocrisy. What is apparent about the Leftist Socialist mindset is that their idea of fair and balanced only includes people who think like they do.



You act as if this is unique to the left. The right is exactly the same. I don't seen any right wingers compromising or embracing any but their own positions.

[Truth Detector]

You see the difference in this is they don't have banners and say every five minutes that they are "fair and balanced".


So what you are trying to say is that because you don't agree with them using this statement, their news worthiness is somehow tainted.

Wow, you are truly profound with this kind of logic: Let's hate a media outlet because they dare to say they are "fair and balanced" because we don't believe it.

Factually, their programs make a great attempt to strike a more fair and balanced form of journalism. It is evidenced by the FACT that they ALWAYS take interviewees from BOTH sides of the aisle.

There's also a reason Bush, Cheney, Condi and all the others mainly give their interviews on Fox News.......they know they won't be asked the hard questions.

I ran the TRUTH detector on this one and found it seriously lacking in any honest factual content. The notion that Republicans are not asked the SAME questions other news channels ask is evidence that you are either uninformed, clueless or biased in your comments.

If you listen to a tape of questions and comments on major networks, they ALL sound the same including FOX network. For more informed people, it is easy to recognize that most of the news we get has been regurgitated from the AP wire and rarely gets much scrutiny before it is blathered across the major networks.

This is one of my favorite parts about Rush Limbaugh’s program, he will splice the headline segments from ALL the networks and they ALL say the same; kind of like a bunch of talking heads which is why he labels them the "drive-by" media. It's a mindless regurgitation of AP pabulum which only gets dissected during talk shows who investigate these stories with more skepticism.

It is OBVIOUS why Leftist Democrats hate the Fox network, because when they get caught lying, like Bill Clinton's famous rant, they start impugning the journalist and news station. I guess they should ask Democrats the same softball questions Diane Sawyer does; too funny.

[ViolaLee]

Fox would be at the bottom of news shows I'd watch simply because of their stated position on slanting the news.
When did the Fox News Channel state that they slant the news?
LOL! You're right, they aren't honest about their slanting of the news...[hr]
I ran the TRITH detector on this one.........

HAHA! You need to get rid of that trith detector and get an actual truth detector!

[potter]

The only thing more profound about democrat denial is their blatant hypocrisy. What is apparent about the Leftist Socialist mindset is that their idea of fair and balanced only includes people who think like they do.



You act as if this is unique to the left. The right is exactly the same. I don't seen any right wingers compromising or embracing any but their own positions.


[font=Tahoma][size=medium][color=#008000]You don't pay very good attention to my comments then. If the RIGHT spews a bunch of lies and bullschit, I will be just as quick to note it.



Cool..

Did you notice the other day that FAUX was labelling McCain as a democrat? They also labelled Craig as a democrat when he was caught playing footsie.

What is it with them and labelling anyone they don't like as democrat irregardless of true political affiliation? Is it an attempt to deceive maybe?

BTW TD...ya got spittle all over your chin...might want to wipe it....

[lawless168]

Cool..

Did you notice the other day that FAUX was labelling McCain as a democrat? They also labelled Craig as a democrat when he was caught playing footsie.

What is it with them and labelling anyone they don't like as democrat irregardless of true political affiliation? Is it an attempt to deceive maybe?

[/quote]
Link (http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/04/110858.aspx)

There are many other aspects of my job, but all revolve around making the show look good. When we make a mistake (and believe me they happen during a three-hour, fast-paced, live, behemoth of a show like this one) I fix them for the next time zone. Sorry Midwest and the rest of ya, but you're missing many of the small blunders we get to see hear in the East

----------

Sometimes being human just happens ;)

[Truth Detector]

Cool..

Did you notice the other day that FAUX was labelling McCain as a democrat? They also labelled Craig as a democrat when he was caught playing footsie.

Fox labeled McCain and Craig as Democrats? Please post the link where FOX labeled these men.

I would be delighted to see credible evidence of how FOX labeled these men as Democrats.

What is it with them and labelling anyone they don't like as democrat irregardless of true political affiliation? Is it an attempt to deceive maybe?

Yet, CBS, ABC, NBC and CNN ran similar stories? Did they LABEL these men as Democrats too? Or was it perhaps REPORTING on those who labeled these men as Democrats?

Perhaps you have some issues with simple comprehension?

I will wait to see the links to support your absurd conclusions that FOX labeled these people as being Democrats.

BTW TD...ya got spittle all over your chin...might want to wipe it....


You may want to wipe the drool from yours.

I think you may be suffering from Liberal Indistinguishable Reality Syndrome, pronounced "LIARS." This is where your leftist bias prevents you from interpreting events as they are, but rather as you PERCEIVE them.

Denial leads to ignorance, don't do denial.
:madlaugh:

[brien]

Alan C hits the proverbial nail right on the head. Excellent pov.

Furthermore, it matters naught to some around here, that FNC beats CNN, CNBC, and other cable news networks, combined in the ratings. :madlaugh:


I wouldn't use ratings as something to be proud of necessarily. American reality T.V. puts all those News Channels to Shame anyway in ratings. People like watching dumb and stupid things, so saying that FNC has good ratings isn't a real compliment LOL.


OK...so tell this to the viewers, advertisers and the accountants at FNC. Ratings tell us how many people are watching the FNC. I suppose they would watch if they thought FNC was baloney? Seems to me that more people think CNN & MSNBC are baloney than FNC because they prefer FNC. Oh, but I guess all of those people who watch FNC are full of baloney also! And dumb, because you say so.:lmao:

The specious claims about FNC comes from only those who have a political agenda whose viewpoint happens to be the opposite of Fox. This makes Fox news no better and no worse than any other TV news source.


People like watching dumb and stupid things so saying that FNC has good ratings isn't a real compliment

Fee fi foe fum, I smell the stink of a elitist someone. This sentence smacks of elitism. Because all of these people watch FNC, they must be dumb because you are equating FNC with Reality shows and calling them dumb. Who are you to call what people like to watch on TV dumb? That is your opinion and yours alone. People who make generalizations like the one above are d....oh well, I will let the reader draw the conclusion here. Geeez :shame:

[Truth Detector]

People like watching dumb and stupid things so saying that FNC has good ratings isn't a real compliment

Fee fi foe fum, I smell the stink of a elitist someone.


I think it should be; "Fee Fi Fo Fum, I smell the stink of elitist scum."

Just saying.......... :madlaugh:

[brien]

There's also a reason Bush, Cheney, Condi and all the others mainly give their interviews on Fox News.......they know they won't be asked the hard questions.

Do you have any evidence of this, or is this because you say so here?

[preservanation]

Fox would be at the bottom of news shows I'd watch simply because of their stated position on slanting the news.
When did the Fox News Channel state that they slant the news?
LOL! You're right, they aren't honest about their slanting of the news... This doesn't make any sense,
or am I missing something?

[AnnEsthesia]

Fox labeling Foley a democrat:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmITwibzgH4

[preservanation]

What?
Why are you ashamed of gays?
That whole issue was to brand gays as some sort of predators and evil.
Guess who led that charge?
Lib/Dems.
Hypocrisy at the highest level.
Whatever happened to defending those who choose alternate life styles?
It just don't matter as long as they can paint their opponents in an unfavorable light.

[brien]

People like watching dumb and stupid things so saying that FNC has good ratings isn't a real compliment

Fee fi foe fum, I smell the stink of a elitist someone.


I think it should be; "Fee Fi Fo Fum, I smell the stink of elitist scum."

Just saying.......... :madlaugh:



I guess I can live with that one. The quote on the ratings that states people who watch certain TV shows are stupid and dumb says volumes about the author of the statement. I don't think even the author understands what he/she wrote and what it reveals about him/herself. It is truly amazing.

My main point was that the statement made by the poster reveals an elitist attitude that the poster certainly didn't recognize in him/herself. I think this is common among those who think they know better than others because if they disagree with something, somehow that something certainly has to be dumb and stupid. Elites usually pretend they know better than others and it gets so tiresome to continually hear this drivel. They can't seem to repsect another's viewpoint or tolerate a diversity of viewpoints. They claim to entertain diversity, but the proof is in the pudding in that post above. Therefore, if it has high ratings, and they don't watch it on TV, it surely must be stupid and dumb! :unreal:

[AnnEsthesia]

What?
Why are you ashamed of gays?
That whole issue was to brand gays as some sort of predators and evil.
Guess who led that charge?
Lib/Dems.
Hypocrisy at the highest level.
Whatever happened to defending those who choose alternate life styles?
It just don't matter as long as they can paint their opponents in an unfavorable light.



Bullshit, Preserva. No one said gays are bad. However men who solicit sex in public bathrooms are criminals. Men who use their positions of power to have sex with underage people, are criminals.

Their sexual orientation has nothing to do with it.

[preservanation]

You mentioned Foley.
Did he solicit sex from underaged boys?
If so, I stand corrected.[hr]men who solicit sex in public bathrooms are criminals.Ok.....
What about women?

[brien]

Fox labeling Foley a democrat:

Wow what a transgression.. What an unrealiable network. Oh please.

Let's examine a serious transgression on a major news network.
So, Dan Rather had to leave CBS News because he was being honest? This report By Kurtz was rather kind to Dan Blather...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7313-2004Nov23.html

Dan Rather said yesterday that he will end his nearly 24-year reign as CBS News anchor early next year, setting the terms of his departure instead of waiting for an investigative report on his rushed and admittedly flawed story on President Bush's National Guard service.

>

"Dan Rather did the Texas two-step, one step ahead of the posse," said Tobe Berkovitz, associate dean of Boston University's school of communication. "It was inevitable that Viacom and CBS were going to have to get rid of him."

Brent Bozell, who runs the conservative Media Research Center, attributed Rather's departure to "the loss of credibility" over the National Guard story. "What made it worse was the 10 days of denial by Dan Rather. He was starting to look bizarre toward the end." While the anchor was flagrantly biased against conservatives, Bozell said, "Dan Rather is a fierce patriot who loves his country, and no one can take that away from him."

Please, this type of dishonest journalism practiced by Blather trumps the FNC in every aspect in the role of the supposed impartial newscaster.

[AnnEsthesia]

Uh... yea, anyone who solicits sex from someone in a public place is, by doing so, a criminal.

[preservanation]

What if they are both consenting adults?
Harsh...

[AnnEsthesia]

It is against the law to solicit sex in a public rest room. Why is it hard for you to understand?

[brien]

Bullshit, Preserva. No one said gays are bad. However men who solicit sex in public bathrooms are criminals. Men who use their positions of power to have sex with underage people, are criminals.



Ok lets examine men who use their power to have sex with underage people.

Does the name Gerry Studds D-Mass mean anything here?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_975/ai_n17093508


As a congressman from Massachusetts, Gerry Studds was famous for keeping a low profile. But that's hard to do when you're being censured by Congress for having a consensual relationship with a 17-year-old male page.

"The difference with Gerry was that others [including Foley] who had problems or were censured said they were drunk or had some excuse. Not Gerry," says gay congressman Barney Frank, who still represents a Massachusetts district adjacent to Studds's old one. "He gave a lot of gay men courage. He was not only the first member of Congress to come out, but he survived."

Does the Name Barney Frank mean anything here? Here is Frank's take on the Foley scandal.

Rep. Barney Frank talks about the Foley scandal
One of the few out politicians on Capitol Hill, Democratic congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts (who survived his own scandal involving a male prostitute in 1989) gives us his take on Foley and on being a gay politician in Washington.
By Matthew Link
An Advocate.com exclusive posted October 4, 2006
Even though at least two other members of Congress have dallied with pages in the past (Democratic representative Gerry Studds of Massachusetts, with a male page in 1973, and Republican representative Dan Crane of Illinois, with a female page circa 1983), Mark Foley's current scandal and admission of being gay seem to have set the D.C. closet on fire.

One of the few out politicians on Capitol Hill, Massachusetts congressman Barney Frank (who survived his own scandal involving a male prostitute in 1989) gives us his take on Foley and on being a gay politician in Washington.

What do you think will be the political fallout of the Foley scandal?
This makes it very, very likely the Democrats will win the House back in November. It's easy to punish a party when it's not the presidency itself.

Was it common knowledge in Washington that Foley was gay?
Both sides of the aisle knew; it was an open secret. Foley would get people in Florida thinking he was out up north, but that was not the case. Once, at a congressional Christmas party at the White House, my ex-boyfriend Herb went up to Foley, who was with a female date, and said to him, "Why don't you get a real date?" Foley didn't say anything.

It's funny how a lot of gay male politicians in Washington came with male dates to these events during the Clinton years, but then showed up with females under Bush.

What do you think was the role of gay Republicans in all this?
Apparently, Kirk Fordham, Foley's ex–chief of staff and Rep. Thomas Reynolds's chief of staff, is a very active gay Republican [and] also had some role in the hush-up. [As of Wednesday, Fordham is no longer on Reynolds's staff.] There are others who were involved that I can't mention since they aren't out. They are all more like secret Jews.

How do the gay Republicans reconcile their consciences?
A lot of them chose between their gayness and their party. I'm sure the group of gay Republican staffers hid Foley's actions as best they could.

This is a real crisis, since before, gays in the Republican Party were willing to be tolerated, but Republicans will now be more nervous having gay people in positions of power. They have been critical of people who are out and gay—there could be a real purge of gays in the Republican Party now. It's probably just enough for people to be perceived to be gay.

Do you think the media has unfairly exploited the gay angle to the scandal?
Newt Gingrich said the Republicans couldn't have publicly reprimanded Foley or they would be accused of gay-bashing. That's just gibberish. There would probably be just as much uproar if it was an underage female, because of Foley's work with children. In fact, I think the media has been fairly good about not gay-bashing this scandal

My my, what a diverse partisain world it is in DC.:madlaugh:

[preservanation]

Soliciting... and doing the nasty are two different things.
How about in a public bar?
If the adults are consenting...why is it a problem?
They can always go somewhere else to consummate the deal.[hr]brian is way ahead of us, as usual...

What about the boss having relations with an underling...pre-1998, it used to be grounds for sex harassment..after that it seemed to be a matter of choice by both parties. Wonder why.

Now you have 14 yr old girls arguing that oral sex isn't sex. Wonder why?

[brien]

It is against the law to solicit sex in a public rest room. Why is it hard for you to understand?



Let's see AnnEsthesia.... Barney Frank solicits sex from known prostitutes, and the last time I looked, prostituition is, except in NV, what was that word? ILLEGAL!:shock:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/tours/scandal/gobie2.htm

Gobie's dream has come true. His accusation that Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) knew that Gobie had operated a prostitution service out of Frank's Capitol Hill apartment became national news after it was first reported Friday by the Washington Times.

Frank, one of two openly gay members of Congress, confirmed Friday that he paid Gobie for sex, hired him with personal funds as an aide and wrote letters on congressional stationery on his behalf to Virginia probation officials, but Frank said he fired Gobie when he learned that clients were visiting the apartment.

Well, I guess the Democrats aren't so clean after all, now are they? Geesh, now come on down off that Democratic high horse, will ya?:madlaugh:[hr]Now to get the thread back on track. Those who think network news programs / stories aren't somewhat biased, and in the case of CBS, totally fabricated, are simply being an ostrich here. All networks seem to have have their spin but when a network newscaster outright lies and fabricates evidence, as did Dan Blather, then that destroys all crediblity in their news department.

I don't recall FNC ever fabricating stories. They may make some minor mistakes, like calling Foley a Democrat, but they are a mostly a credible news source. Of course they spin, and evryone else doesn't? Unless someone can PROVE they fabricate news stories, as was PROVEN in the case at CBS with Rather, I don't see the value in demeaning their newsworthiness. It is merely cotton headed partisian rhetoric. :blah:

[AnnEsthesia]

And yet, soliciting sex is still a crime. If you do not like it, I suggest you go to your local town council and ask for the law to be repealed.

[preservanation]

What constitutes soliciting sex?
A wink;).
A wide stance?
No money changes hands.
Sounds like a charge a fascist would promote.

[potter]

I would be delighted to see credible evidence of how FOX labeled these men as Democrats. [/color][/size][/font]



Oops...it was Foley not Craig...so many GOP pervs they all begin to look alike..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn7qCzV5sNM

and here's McCain as a democrat

http://blog.radioleft.com/blog/_archives/2008/2/7/3511752.html

Oh, and look, its democrat Specter

http://blog.radioleft.com/blog/_archives/2008/2/7/3511752.html

Oh, and Lieberman...but that could be forgiven...

http://www.eyesonfox.org/?p=199

I tried to find where they've ever labeled a democrat as a republican but found nothing.[hr]
There's also a reason Bush, Cheney, Condi and all the others mainly give their interviews on Fox News.......they know they won't be asked the hard questions.

Do you have any evidence of this, or is this because you say so here?


Have you ever heard anyone anywhere ask Bush or Cheney a hard question?

[preservanation]

Do you have any evidence of this, or is this because you say so here?


Have you ever heard anyone anywhere ask Bush or Cheney a hard question?


Question with a question?

Well I have heard both Bush and Cheney being asked hard questions by O'Reily, Cavuto and Hannity.

Here's my question...Was the respect for Clinton's presidency more sacred than Bush's when he lied to congress that none of the heroes in the media refused to ask him a "hard" question?

Oh, that's right...he refused to talk, and everyone in the media ran cover for him and swallowed the lies put out by his sycophants and damage control experts such as Brasil, Carvill, Begala and the point-man, Hillary.

[potter]

Do you have any evidence of this, or is this because you say so here?


Have you ever heard anyone anywhere ask Bush or Cheney a hard question?


Question with a question?

Well I have heard both Bush and Cheney being asked hard questions by O'Reily, Cavuto and Hannity.

Here's my question...Was the respect for Clinton's presidency more sacred than Bush's when he lied to congress that none of the heroes in the media refused to ask him a "hard" question?

Oh, that's right...he refused to talk, and everyone in the media ran cover for him and swallowed the lies put out by his sycophants and damage control experts such as Brasil, Carvill, Begala and the point-man, Hillary.



What type of hard questions?

I'm not defending Clinton so forget that line.

[ViolaLee]

I would be delighted to see credible evidence of how FOX labeled these men as Democrats. [/color][/size][/font]



Oops...it was Foley not Craig...so many GOP pervs they all begin to look alike..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn7qCzV5sNM

and here's McCain as a democrat

http://blog.radioleft.com/blog/_archives/2008/2/7/3511752.html

Oh, and look, its democrat Specter

http://blog.radioleft.com/blog/_archives/2008/2/7/3511752.html

Oh, and Lieberman...but that could be forgiven...

http://www.eyesonfox.org/?p=199

I tried to find where they've ever labeled a democrat as a republican but found nothing.[hr]
There's also a reason Bush, Cheney, Condi and all the others mainly give their interviews on Fox News.......they know they won't be asked the hard questions.

Do you have any evidence of this, or is this because you say so here?


Have you ever heard anyone anywhere ask Bush or Cheney a hard question?




Isn't that funny? FOX labeled McCain as a Democrat....I just saw that the other night. Do they think that the American people are so stupid?

[potter]

I would be delighted to see credible evidence of how FOX labeled these men as Democrats. [/color][/size][/font]



Oops...it was Foley not Craig...so many GOP pervs they all begin to look alike..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn7qCzV5sNM

and here's McCain as a democrat

http://blog.radioleft.com/blog/_archives/2008/2/7/3511752.html

Oh, and look, its democrat Specter

http://blog.radioleft.com/blog/_archives/2008/2/7/3511752.html

Oh, and Lieberman...but that could be forgiven...

http://www.eyesonfox.org/?p=199

I tried to find where they've ever labeled a democrat as a republican but found nothing.[hr]
There's also a reason Bush, Cheney, Condi and all the others mainly give their interviews on Fox News.......they know they won't be asked the hard questions.

Do you have any evidence of this, or is this because you say so here?


Have you ever heard anyone anywhere ask Bush or Cheney a hard question?




Isn't that funny? FOX labeled McCain as a Democrat....I just saw that the other night. Do they think that the American people are so stupid?



Seems they only use the "D" on people they don't seem to like....and I'm still trying to find where they've labelled a democrat as a republican.

[preservanation]

Isn't that funny? FOX labeled McCain as a Democrat....I just saw that the other night. Do they think that the American people are so stupid? I really do believe that the media (even Fox) knows which party McCain belongs to.
Don't you?

Maybe they said Liberal?

[ViolaLee]

FOX doesn't seem to know which party MANY politicians belong to. If they don't like a Republican, they name him a Democrat. Do you think they do it on purpose or are they inept?

[potter]

FOX doesn't seem to know which party MANY politicians belong to. If they don't like a Republican, they name him a Democrat. Do you think they do it on purpose or are they inept?


If they did it the other way around every now and again I'd consider it to be error. As is I have to assume it's done to intentionally mislead their viewers. It's a sublimnal thing....associating slime with the democrats. (yes, I consider the mis-labelled to be mostly slime)

[Grizz]

Fox labeled McCain and Craig as Democrats? Please post the link where FOX labeled these men.

Craig's off the radar right now, but you may want to check this:

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/1054/fox_mccaind.jpg

Note that right after his name it shows (D-AZ). This is the sort of childish stuff so common on the right, like saying Democrat Party instead of Democratic Party.

[preservanation]

FOX doesn't seem to know which party MANY politicians belong to. If they don't like a Republican, they name him a Democrat. Do you think they do it on purpose or are they inept?
You might disagree with them actually airing a differing point of view than yours...that's typical.
But calling them inept is just wrong. look at the ratings.
They are well respected and accurate.
For you to say that they are less fair and accurate than say... Rather, for example would be incredulous.

[Grizz]

People like watching dumb and stupid things so saying that FNC has good ratings isn't a real compliment

Fee fi foe fum, I smell the stink of a elitist someone.


I think it should be; "Fee Fi Fo Fum, I smell the stink of elitist scum."

Just saying.......... :madlaugh:



I guess I can live with that one. The quote on the ratings that states people who watch certain TV shows are stupid and dumb says volumes about the author of the statement. I don't think even the author understands what he/she wrote and what it reveals about him/herself. It is truly amazing.

My main point was that the statement made by the poster reveals an elitist attitude that the poster certainly didn't recognize in him/herself. I think this is common among those who think they know better than others because if they disagree with something, somehow that something certainly has to be dumb and stupid. Elites usually pretend they know better than others and it gets so tiresome to continually hear this drivel. They can't seem to repsect another's viewpoint or tolerate a diversity of viewpoints. They claim to entertain diversity, but the proof is in the pudding in that post above. Therefore, if it has high ratings, and they don't watch it on TV, it surely must be stupid and dumb! :unreal:


I don't know about 'stupid and dumb', but I refuse to watch purported news shows that make no bones about their point of view and push that particular view relentlessly. What this means is that the viewer is getting less than the complete story which will then lead to erroneous conclusions. Yes, newspapers and broadcast media do error in some of their reporting. They also publish retractions or corrections, something that right wingers do not do even if their noses are rubbed in the truth at some later date.

I most certainly do respect other viewpoints or opinions. However, when those views are based on blatently false or incomplete information, and the holder of those views refuses to change in the face of additional factual information, then whatever respect was initially give will be withdrawn.

[potter]

FOX doesn't seem to know which party MANY politicians belong to. If they don't like a Republican, they name him a Democrat. Do you think they do it on purpose or are they inept?
You might disagree with them actually airing a differing point of view than yours...that's typical.
But calling them inept is just wrong. look at the ratings.
They are well respected and accurate.
For you to say that they are less fair and accurate than say... Rather, for example would be incredulous.


I agree thay may not be inept, but I do feel they are deceptive and manipulative just as are many domestic news sources these days. They know that too many people think that just because it's aired on the telly it's got to be the truth. They all have their agenda and IMO FAUX is unapologetic about theirs, plainly pro GOP. Plainly anti democrat and democracy. Their pundits also seem to be purposely hateful and divisive. They also have a penchant for presenting speculation and opinion as fact. Moreso than other outlets. The people do fall for it. It's the entertainmet value I suppose.

I have to disagree though that they are respected. They are entertainment. Period. I know few people that consider FOX a respectible media outlet, and I personally find nothing credible about them.

[Truth Detector]

I don't know about 'stupid and dumb', but I refuse to watch purported news shows that make no bones about their point of view and push that particular view relentlessly.

I don't know of any news shows like this. Which ones would that be?

[PatrickHenry]

Rove is an uncharged criminal. He was involved in the Plame affair, but got political cover from Bush.

He's also well known as a political dirty-trickster.

Many think that the 2000 smear campaign in South carolina against McCain smelled of KRove.

Typical of FOXNews to hire such an "unbiased" individual to comment on politics.

Why am I not surprised?

[Grizz]

FOX doesn't seem to know which party MANY politicians belong to. If they don't like a Republican, they name him a Democrat. Do you think they do it on purpose or are they inept?
You might disagree with them actually airing a differing point of view than yours...that's typical.
But calling them inept is just wrong. look at the ratings.
They are well respected and accurate.
For you to say that they are less fair and accurate than say... Rather, for example would be incredulous.


Here's a nifty view of Fox slants (http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/tags/fox_news_channel?f=h_hot) Granted, it's from someone who was an intimate of the hard right who finally saw them for what they are, but it is interesting.

[Truth Detector]

Fox labeled McCain and Craig as Democrats? Please post the link where FOX labeled these men.

Craig's off the radar right now, but you may want to check this:

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/1054/fox_mccaind.jpg

Note that right after his name it shows (D-AZ). This is the sort of childish stuff so common on the right, like saying Democrat Party instead of Democratic Party.


So some dumb intern back in the news room can't put the right party on the party label and you automatically determine that it is some sinister Right Wing plot by FAUX news.....got it.

I am just glad they didn't put his State as NY, no telling what sinister meaning you would have divined on that one.

I guess you think you are an informed viewer.

[Grizz]

I don't know about 'stupid and dumb', but I refuse to watch purported news shows that make no bones about their point of view and push that particular view relentlessly.

I don't know of any news shows like this. Which ones would that be?


Uh... that would be Fox News. If you are not aware of their bias from Rupert on down, then I suggest you're just ignorant, something that is curable. But that depends on you, of course.

[Truth Detector]

FOX doesn't seem to know which party MANY politicians belong to. If they don't like a Republican, they name him a Democrat. Do you think they do it on purpose or are they inept?


If they did it the other way around every now and again I'd consider it to be error. As is I have to assume it's done to intentionally mislead their viewers. It's a sublimnal thing....associating slime with the democrats. (yes, I consider the mis-labelled to be mostly slime)


Once again, for both you and Potter, I haven't seen anything credible from either of you where anyone from Fox NEWS has labeled McCain as being a Democrat.

I guess Democrats and Socialists have trouble distinguishing their PERCEPTIONS from REALITY. [hr]

I don't know about 'stupid and dumb', but I refuse to watch purported news shows that make no bones about their point of view and push that particular view relentlessly.

I don't know of any news shows like this. Which ones would that be?


Uh... that would be Fox News. If you are not aware of their bias from Rupert on down, then I suggest you're just ignorant, something that is curable. But that depends on you, of course.


I see, so in using your incredible intellect, it is WRONG to have a bias in the news business? Is this your argument? Or is it only WRONG if they have a Conservative bias?

Just trying to get to the lofty level of genius you apparently think you are at.

What do I know? I usually prefer to go on FACTS not innuendo, hyperbole and Sophistry.

[Grizz]

So some dumb intern back in the news room can't put the right party on the party label and you automatically determine that it is some sinister Right Wing plot by FAUX news.....got it.

I am just glad they didn't put his State as NY, no telling what sinister meaning you would have divined on that one.

I guess you think you are an informed viewer.

Oh, just a 'dumb intern'. Fox must have a lot of them. Why would an intern, even a newbie, working for a major news organization not know that John McCain was a Republican? Are you saying that Fox hires stupid people?

As far as managing the news, here's a nifty quote from Mr. Murdoch:

Asked if his News Corp. managed to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq, Murdoch said: "No, I don't think so. We tried." Asked by Rose for further comment, he said: "We basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East…but we have been very critical of his execution."

Well, I guess you are still entitled to your opinion, biased and ill-informed as it is, but, unfortunately, facts is still facts and you're on the short end of this argument. Factually speaking, of course.

[preservanation]

You're right, Grizz. The NYT is so much more trusted and responsible Because they have so much more to retract.
The NYT story itself makes out a prima facie case of editorial negligence against Raines. a) He allowed a reporter with a highly shaky record be assigned to a major national story (the sniper case); b) He didn't tell the relevant editor (in this case national editor Jim Roberts) about the reporter's shaky record-- because, Raines says, he didn't want to "stigmatize" the reporter for having sought "help"! c) He didn't ask questions when this shaky reporter suddenly came up with a big scoop that none of the dozens of other reporters on the case had come up with. ...
But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge.But looking back, we also found some things we wish we had done differently. … The Times's stories—echoed and often oversimplified by politicians and other news organizations—touched off a fierce public debate. … The Times should have moved more quickly to open a second line of reporting, particularly among scientists inside and outside the government … There are articles we should have assigned but did not. … In those instances where we fell short of our standards in our coverage of this story, the blame lies principally with those who directed the coverage, for not raising questions that occurred to us only later. … The original article was blamed for inciting widespread protests and riots in the Muslim world, where desecration of the Koran is viewed as an incendiary act, and where at least 17 people were killed in the ensuing violence.

"Based on what we know now, we are retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered Koran abuse at Guantánamo Bay," the statement from Newsweek said.

The carefully worded retraction came after the White House said the Newsweek article had damaged the image of the United States abroad. It reflected the severity of consequences that even one sentence in a brief news article can have at a time of intense anti-American sentiment overseas and political polarization, as well as extreme distrust of the mainstream media at home.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/politics/17koran.html?ei=5088&en=4e8173c92dc1f2af&ex=1273982400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print


A post in The Medium that appeared on Monday about the Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and his purported adoption by white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups contained several errors. Stormfront, which describes itself as a "white nationalist" Internet community, did not give money to Ron Paul's presidential campaign; according to Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Paul's campaign, it was Don Black, the founder of Stormfront, who donated $500 to Paul. The original post also repeated a string of assertions by Bill White, the commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party, including the allegation that Paul meets regularly "with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review and others" at a restaurant in Arlington, Va. Paul never attended these dinners, according to Benton, who also says that Paul has never knowingly met Bill White. Norman Singleton, a congressional aide in Paul's office, says that he met Bill White at a dinner gathering of conservatives several years ago, after which Singleton expressed his indignation at the views espoused by White to the organizer of the dinner. The original post should not have been published with these unverified assertions and without any response from Paulhttp://www.rense.com/general79/supr.htm
Following a massive amount of attention from political bloggers, The New York Times has retracted their story which reported that Hillary Clinton was referring to Democrats when she told a group of Democrat women in Arkansas, "We do things that are controversial. We do things that try to inflame their base...We are wasting time." The false story also implied that Democrats were bringing up the controversial issue of gay marriage when it was, in fact, the Republicans.I'm getting a little tired of this now...
Suffice to say, Practice Makes Perfect!

just because FNC doesn't spout you're lib agenda doesn't mean they are wrong.
Maybe it's the other way around.
Living in a Democracy means accepting views that you might not share.
If you let the news live by fiat from one point of view, you are living with Stalin.

[Fishingriver]

Here's my question...Was the respect for Clinton's presidency more sacred than Bush's when he lied to congress that none of the heroes in the media refused to ask him a "hard" question?

Oh, that's right...he refused to talk, and everyone in the media ran cover for him and swallowed the lies put out by his sycophants and damage control experts such as Brasil, Carvill, Begala and the point-man, Hillary.


It is revealing that the best defense you can come up with for the "current" president is to keep running back to a guy who was president 9 friggin years ago. What it tells me is that you don't really have any way to defend Bush, or you would.
You spend too much time watching FOX Pres. Its not fair and it isn't balanced and there aren't any "real liberals" who think otherwise. The "reasonable liberals" you are so fond of referring to are either non-existent people of your own creation, or right wingnuts who are closer to center than yourself. But there are no liberals who aren't aware of FOX bias.

[preservanation]

Funny, the reasons that you don't consider the libs on FNC as libs is because they are on FNC.
Circular at best...but more along the lines of silly.
Juan Williams?
Jane Hall?
Colms?
Mara Liason?
Oh, and there are many more.

Aesop would call that "sour grapes".

[Grizz]

FYI - the NY Times prints a daily correction column, something that's usually missing in right wing outlets. They also fired those responsible for shoddy journalism and reported on it. Also, taking a few instances of bad reporting and using that to suggest this is the norm is about standard for the right. It's not and never was, but making mountains out of molehills and bellowing about it simply doesn't change the facts. As I said, you're entitied to your opinions, but not your own facts. Biased B.S. is still biased and that's what Fox is about and has been since their inception.

[preservanation]

FYI - the NY Times prints a daily correction column, something that's usually missing in right wing outlets.
The fact that they need a "Daily Correction Column" is exactly my point.

[Fishingriver]

Funny, the reasons that you don't consider the libs on FNC as libs is because they are on FNC.
Circular at best...but more along the lines of silly.
Juan Williams?
Jane Hall?
Colms?
Mara Liason?
Oh, and there are many more.

Aesop would call that "sour grapes".



I don't watch FOX News. I don't watch the news anywhere. I read. I have watched it, and I couldn't tell what they called news reports from their commentaries. I have a lot of friends who are liberal, they ALL hold FOX up as an example of bias. But to me, they are all protective of Big Money/Republicansim. Washington Post/NYT's/CNN, et all. The media has been taking a distinctly right turn since the 80's.

[preservanation]

I don't watch FOX News... I have a lot of friends who are liberal, they ALL hold FOX up as an example of bias.
Your Liberal friends are all entitled to their opinion, and you are too, if you are content with having one by proxy.

[Fishingriver]

I don't watch FOX News... I have a lot of friends who are liberal, they ALL hold FOX up as an example of bias.
Your Liberal friends are all entitled to their opinion, and you are too, if you are content with having one by proxy.


Your thinking that I am entitled to my opinion is of no concern to me. I'll voice it whether you believe that or not. I said in the post that I have watched FOX. So, my opinion isn't by proxy. The reference to "my liberal friends" was that none of them believe FOX is balanced. You are the only one I hear making claims that "reasonable liberals" regard FOX as fair or balanced. Yours is the proxy opinion.

[Grizz]

FYI - the NY Times prints a daily correction column, something that's usually missing in right wing outlets.
The fact that they need a "Daily Correction Column" is exactly my point.


I suggest you take a course in journalistic ethics (or just ethics) at your local college. Might be an eye opener. Or are you saying that right wing rags don't have to have a corrections section because they're never wrong? Like George W. Bush who never makes a mistake? :madlaugh:

[apdst]

The reference to "my liberal friends" was that none of them believe FOX is balanced

Of course they think FNC is biased and unbalanced, because FNC actually IS fair and balanced, therefore telling it like it is and Liberals, as a general rule can't handle that much truth, at one time. Liberals can't survive without believing that, BushliedAmericaisbadtorturebadchristiansareevilisl amisgoodeveryoneisaracistheispoorbecauseheisblackh eisrichbecauseheiswhitehurricanekatrinawasbushsfau ltandandetempttokillallthecoloredfolksinneworleans nineelevanwasaninsidejobamericansoldiersaremurdere rshalliburtoniseviltheeconomyisinthetoiletweareall doomedandonlyaultraleftwingliberalcansaveusall. Without their daily infusion of any one part of all that BS, they would go into convulsions.

[Elrathin]

The reference to "my liberal friends" was that none of them believe FOX is balanced

Of course they think FNC is biased and unbalanced, because FNC actually IS fair and balanced, therefore telling it like it is and Liberals, as a general rule can't handle that much truth, at one time.


Is that why FNC omitted saying that Ron Paul won second in Nevada when he did? If they were Fair and Balanced they wouldn't have excluded him.

[apdst]

What are you even talking about, El?

[Grizz]

The reference to "my liberal friends" was that none of them believe FOX is balanced

Of course they think FNC is biased and unbalanced, because FNC actually IS fair and balanced, therefore telling it like it is and Liberals, as a general rule can't handle that much truth, at one time. Liberals can't survive without believing that.....


I'm terribly sorry to inject a dose of reality into your comfortable bubble, but the deliberate bias of Fox is well documented.

You may now return to sleep mode. Sorry for the intrusion.

[preservanation]

I'm not aware of documented bias...except on the left

- 9 white house correspondents survey voted for Clinton in 1992, while 2 voted for Bush
- 12 voted for Dukakis in 1988 - one for Bush
- 10 voted for Mondale in 1984 - zero for Reagan
- 8 voted for Jimmy Carter in 1980 - 2 for Reagan
Source: US News and World Report White House Reporter Kenneth Walsh
To argue that journalists are somehow immune from their personal biases when reporting or covering news is pollyanna and denies human nature.
The media openly admitting bias....
"The societal purpose of the media is to inculcate and defend the economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this purpose in many ways: through the selection of topics, distribution of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises."
Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), Pantheon Books, NY
"The old argument that the networks and other 'media elites' have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don't sit around in dark corners and plan how we will slant the news. It comes naturally to most reporters"
CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg, Feb 13, 1996 Wall Street Journal op-ed.
Source - Times Mirror Center for the people and the Press, May 1995


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Bill Clinton
Clinton suggested at the end of 1996 a 25% CUT in the Federal home assistance plan, and as a result received a lot of flack from representatives in the Northeastern states. He thus decided to drop the issue. His change in position was shown in the Bangor, Maine Newspaper as "Clinton Saves Federal Heating Assistance Plan" ....SAVES??? He was going to cut it. Funny we didn't hear anything about Clinton "gutting" the heating plan as I am sure it would have been referred to if a Republican had suggested the cut. It's so interesting how Clinton is hailed as "saving" a plan that HE suggested cutting!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Media Bias - Distorting the facts?
We often hear Clinton trumpet how his administration has created "1 million new jobs" And the media goes right along. Aside from the fact that most of the jobs created were low-skill, minimum wage jobs, Clinton's $241 billion tax increase in 1993 reduced the number of private sector jobs by 1.2 million between 1993 and 1996. Without the 1993 budget deal, 40,000 more businesses would have been created. Seen the media focusing on this aspect of Clinton's alleged "job creation" success??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Media Bias - Another angle on the drug war
The media doesn't focus on the failing drug war? There have been more articles and TV shows recently on drug use increase (especially heroine) than there have been for years. The media has reported the failing drug war - but do they blame Clinton? NO. Drug use has increased 100% under Clinton's presidency - does the media point this out? NO. Until Clinton took office, drug use was decreasing rapidly under Republican presidents for 11 years straight. But then Clinton took office and slashed the White House Office of Drug Control Policy by 80%. He cut the number of drug enforcements agents and their training. His National Security Council dropped the war on drugs from THIRD priority to last - 29th out of 29. Does the media focus on the success on the war on drugs, the success that was occurring UNTIL Clinton took office?http://www.gargaro.com/bias.html

[Fishingriver]

I'm not aware of documented bias...except on the left

- 9 white house correspondents survey voted for Clinton in 1992, while 2 voted for Bush
- 12 voted for Dukakis in 1988 - one for Bush
- 10 voted for Mondale in 1984 - zero for Reagan
- 8 voted for Jimmy Carter in 1980 - 2 for Reagan
Source: US News and World Report White House Reporter Kenneth Walsh
To argue that journalists are somehow immune from their personal biases when reporting or covering news is pollyanna and denies human nature.
The media openly admitting bias....
"The societal purpose of the media is to inculcate and defend the economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this purpose in many ways: through the selection of topics, distribution of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises."
Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), Pantheon Books, NY
"The old argument that the networks and other 'media elites' have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don't sit around in dark corners and plan how we will slant the news. It comes naturally to most reporters"
CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg, Feb 13, 1996 Wall Street Journal op-ed.
Source - Times Mirror Center for the people and the Press, May 1995


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Bill Clinton
Clinton suggested at the end of 1996 a 25% CUT in the Federal home assistance plan, and as a result received a lot of flack from representatives in the Northeastern states. He thus decided to drop the issue. His change in position was shown in the Bangor, Maine Newspaper as "Clinton Saves Federal Heating Assistance Plan" ....SAVES??? He was going to cut it. Funny we didn't hear anything about Clinton "gutting" the heating plan as I am sure it would have been referred to if a Republican had suggested the cut. It's so interesting how Clinton is hailed as "saving" a plan that HE suggested cutting!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Media Bias - Distorting the facts?
We often hear Clinton trumpet how his administration has created "1 million new jobs" And the media goes right along. Aside from the fact that most of the jobs created were low-skill, minimum wage jobs, Clinton's $241 billion tax increase in 1993 reduced the number of private sector jobs by 1.2 million between 1993 and 1996. Without the 1993 budget deal, 40,000 more businesses would have been created. Seen the media focusing on this aspect of Clinton's alleged "job creation" success??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Media Bias - Another angle on the drug war
The media doesn't focus on the failing drug war? There have been more articles and TV shows recently on drug use increase (especially heroine) than there have been for years. The media has reported the failing drug war - but do they blame Clinton? NO. Drug use has increased 100% under Clinton's presidency - does the media point this out? NO. Until Clinton took office, drug use was decreasing rapidly under Republican presidents for 11 years straight. But then Clinton took office and slashed the White House Office of Drug Control Policy by 80%. He cut the number of drug enforcements agents and their training. His National Security Council dropped the war on drugs from THIRD priority to last - 29th out of 29. Does the media focus on the success on the war on drugs, the success that was occurring UNTIL Clinton took office?http://www.gargaro.com/bias.html


This is some way old stuff Pres. Even when it was new it was mostly right wing Op-Ed. What does this prove? How is this documenting anything that sheds light on the current state of affiars?

[apdst]

This is some way old stuff Pres.

You're one to talk. You drag shit up from the 90's.

[preservanation]

This is some way old stuff Pres. Even when it was new it was mostly right wing Op-Ed. What does this prove? How is this documenting anything that sheds light on the current state of affiars? I was making the point that some seem so eager to condemn FNC for bias...which has yet to be substanciated, but at the same time fail to even recognize the obvious, long standing and demonstrated left-wing bias by other networks and the MSM.

[bishop]

when it comes to reporting actual news, fox does just about the same job as all other networks. but compared to other networks, there is far more "talk about news" on fox than actual reporting of the news. and when it comes to talking about the news, people like to hear what they want to hear... makes them feel good about themselves i suppose.

the core viewer of fox are self-described "conservatives".. since all corporate televised news is a carefully produced entertainment, fox is simply sculpting its product to its customers.. and to support this intentional marketing, it's no surprise that the network is led by someone who was the media consultant for nixon, reagan and pappa bush - roger ailes.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=215

[apdst]

The reason the Libs are on the warpath over FNC, is because FNC's message reaches more people and the Libs just can't let that happen. More people tune into FNC and the only way to stop the listening, is to demonize FNC to the point that, pray to the Libbo god, some of them stop listening...LOL!

[bishop]

The reason the Libs are on the warpath over FNC, is because FNC's message reaches more people and the Libs just can't let that happen. More people tune into FNC and the only way to stop the listening, is to demonize FNC to the point that, pray to the Libbo god, some of them stop listening...LOL!


of course, if you consider cbs, nbc, abc, bbc, pbs, cnn and msnbc to be liberal stations - the combined number of viewers for those stations dwarfs the number of people who watch fox. but alas, these are just technicalities...

[AnnEsthesia]

Shhh bishop. Those are mere facts. ;)

[apdst]

of course, if you consider cbs, nbc, abc, bbc, pbs, cnn and msnbc to be liberal stations - the combined number of viewers for those stations dwarfs the number of people who watch fox.

That's the part that scares the crappola out of the Libs. Those stations have to combine their ratings to beat out FNC...LMAO!! The fact is, FNC is the single highest rated news org, at least in America. Hell, you have to drag in a Brit outfit to help beat FNC's ratings...LOL!! And PBS isn't exactly a news orginization, to begin with.

[Elrathin]

That's the part that scares the crappola out of the Libs. Those stations have to combine their ratings to beat out FNC...LMAO!! The fact is, FNC is the single highest rated news org, at least in America. Hell, you have to drag in a Brit outfit to help beat FNC's ratings...LOL!! And PBS isn't exactly a news orginization, to begin with.


American love stupid T.V., just look at reality shows and their high ratings. FNC high ratings prove the same thing, people love watching the train wreck that is FNC. Their news is so slanted and backwards it is no wonder idiots watch it.

[preservanation]

I think that some are so myopic and welded to liberalism that anything or anybody who doesn't toe the line is automatically branded a nut.
To them liberalism is what "is".
In truth they are the brain washed ones, they are so far gone, that they not only dismiss opinions of which they disagree, but call those who bring up competing points of view as stupid.
Talk about bias!

[bishop]

great point... someone could say the exact same thing about "conservatives"... broad characterizations of entire groups doesn't exactly make for intelligent debate. it smacks of immature name calling.

i go back to my original point... when it comes to actually reporting news, fox does just about as good (and just as biased imo) a job as any other corporate network. fox just seems to have more shows that talk about the news than its competitors (although msnbc is a close runner up in that department). this is just fox giving its fans what they want - especially since many of those fans have been listening to "conservative" radio for years and tend to parrot rush's views wherever they go.

[preservanation]

I see your point about FNC, and will cede that.

But Conservative view are conservative view, it doesn't matter who promotes it.
By the same reasoning you could accuse Rush of simply parroting Buckley, Steele, Sowell, Schlafly, Clarance Thomas, Goldwater, or Reagan...take your pick.
This is defending a consistent and historic philosophy which is the basis for our Constitution and Republic, not yakking about the weather.

[bishop]

today's "conservatives" cite the constitution when it's convenient to do so as far as i'm concerned.. and today's "liberals" are no different. when you vote for people who consistently increase the size of government, pile on the debt, chip away at our constitutional rights and those that were intended to prevent the federal government from getting too much power - the argument that "conservatives" are defending the constitution rings hollow.

i don't understand why neither side can admit to this reality. the iraq war and the patriot act are as unconstitutional as are smoking bans on private property and universal healthcare. all seems to be dependent on the flavor of kool aid you like to drink. for myself, i don't consider myself to fall into either of those categories, which is probably the reason why i rarely watch any televised news.

[preservanation]

We agree on so much, bishop, it's scary.

However, I support the war in Iraq because I believe that it is a central part of the WOT.
Many disagree, and have tried to changed my mind...to no avail. I know there are some legitimate conservatives who believe that this is not the case...We can have that disagreement and debate. Shows we are not all monolithic neaderthal's who march in lock-step as some on the left imply. That is a particular, but our overall belief that our security is of utmost importance remains the same. We might just disagree how to achieve that.

National security is one of the main tenets of conservatism, and is money well spent and a specific responsibility enumerated (one of the few) to our gov by the Constitution because without that we lose everything else we hold dear, including our inaliable rights.

[Truth Detector]

the iraq war and the patriot act are as unconstitutional as are smoking bans on private property and universal healthcare.

Please cite where in the Constitution the Iraq War and Patriot Act are unconstitutional acts?

I keep hearing this nonsense, and when challenged, rarely see any CREDIBLE citation that can support such absurd statements.

The Constitution is clear; Congress enacts the laws, the President defends the nation’s laws and the nation. The resolution to go to War was clear to all but the most illiterate. Yet we are constantly fed the same liberal pile of bile that this somehow was NOT an authorization.

READ it if you don't believe me: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

The last time I looked all of our Congress people and Senators were elected by the people, not appointed. Last time I looked, the President was elected by the people; twice for that matter.

Here is the complete law, please illustrate whose civil Liberties are being denied:

http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

[bishop]

We agree on so much, bishop, it's scary.

However, I support the war in Iraq because I believe that it is a central part of the WOT.
Many disagree, and have tried to changed my mind...to no avail. I know there are some legitimate conservatives who believe that this is not the case...We can have that disagreement and debate. Shows we are not all monolithic neaderthal's who march in lock-step as some on the left imply. That is a particular, but our overall belief that our security is of utmost importance remains the same. We might just disagree how to achieve that.

National security is one of the main tenets of conservatism, and is money well spent and a specific responsibility enumerated (one of the few) to our gov by the Constitution because without that we lose everything else we hold dear, including our inaliable rights.


iraq was always something that concerned the majority of people left and right alike. the real question, which wasn't given much/any air-time, was whether/not the threat was adequately contained. many people believed that having inspectors in the country, the scrict enforcement of the no-fly zones and troops stationed on iraq's borders (not to mention sanctions) created an atmosphere where the threat was sufficiently well-contained. likewise, you had people who supported military action for more emotional reasons, undoubtedly fed into by 9/11, "mushroom cloud" rhetoric coming from the white house. and, you had another set of people who opposed any military action, regardless of the establishment's b.s. about wmd's being true or not.

i personally believe that the threat was very well contained - and that bush's decision to invade has created a greater threat than what existed under saddam (we normally cite afghanistan being a failed state as the reason why they harbored al-qaeda, and iraq can very well follow suit). and as we now see, the claims about wmd's were patently false - regardless of motive.

and you mention "national security", one of my favorite catch phrases that people use when characterizing ideological affiliations.. this notion that if we didn't go to war against iraq constituting national security, and opposition to going to war as being weak on national security is patently false. it's something that the political talking heads love to argue, but what often fails to be mentioned in the left/right arguments are the grey areas. likewise, sending billions in military aid to countries like egypt, israel and saudi arabia arguably isn't exactly an issue of national security - although some would suggest that it is. some great priorities we have when we go to war against countries that never attacked us, fail to adequately treat our own wounded troops, give weapons to countries whose people are hostile to our own, and utterly fail to secure our own borders and ports... if there is a party that really cares about national security, it isn't republican or democrat as far as i'm concerned.. actions speak much louder than words - despite the fact that words seem to be what people pay more attention to these days.

[brien]

Yes, newspapers and broadcast media do error in some of their reporting. They also publish retractions or corrections, something that right wingers do not do even if their noses are rubbed in the truth at some later date.


The NYT publishes its retractions buried somewhere in the middle of the newspaper while they sensationize their lies on the front page. Does this poster above have an example of the "right wingers" errors where they refuse to retract them, and their " noses are rubbed in the truth at some later date." Or is this merely cotton headed blather based upon rhetoric? Please enlighten us as to a serious "right wing error" on the same level as Dan Rather or Jason Blair, and a host of others like Janet Cooke, Stephen Glass, Patricia Smith and Jay Foremen, or perhaps you should retract your statement.:ponder:

Just to refresh your memory.

http://www.slate.com/id/2082741/

Project
How did he bamboozle the New York Times?
By Jack Shafer
Posted Thursday, May 8, 2003, at 5:45 PM ET

Jayson Blair: faking it
What can you say about a trusted professional who makes stuff up and publishes it as fact?

Last week, New York Times reporter Jayson Blair joined Janet Cooke, formerly of the Washington Post, the New Republic's Stephen Glass, the Boston Globe's Patricia Smith, and Jay Forman in Slate as journalists who got caught embellishing, exaggerating, and outright lying in print. The will to fabricate cuts across disciplines, with academics and scientists inventing data, too. Last year, Emory University history professor Michael A. Bellesiles resigned following an investigation of charges that he concocted evidence to support his book Arming America, and Bell Labs fired researcher Jan Hendrik Schon when it discovered he made up scientific data and published it.


So, besides CBS and Dan Rather, we see from the above evidence, it seems the names associated with lies and fraud are often the employees of newsmedia outlets like the Boston Globe, the New York Times, the New Republic, and and the Washington Post. We see evidence here, but does it include the so called "right wingers"? Hmmmmmmmmm:ponder:

Perhaps our poster who claims "right wingers" never correct their mistakes can enlighten us all here. We will see.[hr]Grizz wrote:

I suggest you take a course in journalistic ethics (or just ethics) at your local college. Might be an eye opener. Or are you saying that right wing rags don't have to have a corrections section because they're never wrong

I have named almost a half dozen instances where the so called non partisain media has been caught in outright lies and deceptions. Can you name at least two or three "right wing" publications on the same level as the NY Times, the Washington Post, or the New Republic, you are alluding to in your above post? I am not saying they aren't there, so please provide some examples for us, and please source them with links for us to see. Otherwise, are your statement credible? Thanks:peace:


[hr]
when it comes to reporting actual news, fox does just about the same job as all other networks. but compared to other networks, there is far more "talk about news" on fox than actual reporting of the news. and when it comes to talking about the news, people like to hear what they want to hear... makes them feel good about themselves i suppose.

the core viewer of fox are self-described "conservatives".. since all corporate televised news is a carefully produced entertainment, fox is simply sculpting its product to its customers.. and to support this intentional marketing, it's no surprise that the network is led by someone who was the media consultant for nixon, reagan and pappa bush - roger ailes.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=215


As usual, Bishop's insight is dead on. :thumbsup:[hr]

That's the part that scares the crappola out of the Libs. Those stations have to combine their ratings to beat out FNC...LMAO!! The fact is, FNC is the single highest rated news org, at least in America. Hell, you have to drag in a Brit outfit to help beat FNC's ratings...LOL!! And PBS isn't exactly a news orginization, to begin with.


American love stupid T.V., just look at reality shows and their high ratings. FNC high ratings prove the same thing, people love watching the train wreck that is FNC. Their news is so slanted and backwards it is no wonder idiots watch it.

And I suppose CBS, NBC,ABC etc aren't slanted as well? So anyone who watches news on TV is, according to you stupid, I guess.

Once again this poster above is equating high ratings with stupid viewers, and I would suggest the only one who seems dimwitted here, is the one who is making these "stupid" claims.

Elrathin, why don't you prove your statement with statistics, sources and links, once and for all. Show us how high ratings are equivalent to stupidity. Otherwise, who looks stupid here?:madlaugh:
We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking[hr]Please cite where in the Constitution the Iraq War and Patriot Act are unconstitutional acts?

Well, sections of the Patriot Act seem to me to be violations of the 4th, 5th,6th, and 8th Amendments. And the War in Iraq is a flagrant violation of Article One Section 8.

[Grizz]

The NYT publishes its retractions buried somewhere in the middle of the newspaper while they sensationize their lies on the front page.

Please take any of the last seven days from the front page of the NY Times and let me know the lies. Links would be real helpful. While you're at it, could you please post a link to the retraction or corrections section of any right wing publication of your choice (Wall Street Journal not included; they have good reporters, just a seriously biased opinion page).

Never mind, all you have is a little dog that you keep whipping. I know it gives you a thrill, but it's really rather unbecoming.

Please enlighten us as to a serious "right wing error" on the same level as Dan Rather or Jason Blair, and a host of others like Janet Cooke, Stephen Glass, Patricia Smith and Jay Foremen, or perhaps you should retract your statement.

Updated daily for your edification and education. (http://mediamatters.org/)

Can you name at least two or three "right wing" publications on the same level as the NY Times...

Golly, I'd really like to give you some names, but, actually, there are no right wing news outlets that are even close to being comparable.

[preservanation]

Grizz, to back up your claim of "right-wing bias, you linked me to MediaMatters.
If that wasn't bad enough...it was a story about David Schuster for muddle-sake!
Schuster is (was) an unabashed left wing bomb throwing ideologue masquerading as a journalist, who recently lost his nuts by saying that Hillary was "pimping out" Chelsea on the campaign trail...and to top it off he works (worked) for MSNBC, hardly a bastion of right wing thought.
I don't understand how this supports your contention, or anything else for that matter...

[Grizz]

I don't go there (Media Matters) often, but it is interesting from time to time. I also suggest you get a bit beyond their top stories. You'll find more than enough on distortions by Fox and other right wing media outlets.

[preservanation]

I don't go there (Media Matters) often, but it is interesting from time to time. I also suggest you get a bit beyond their top stories. You'll find more than enough on distortions by Fox and other right wing media outlets.
I know the left hates FNC, almost as much as they hate Bush.
That is well known, but to use a biased radical left wing source to prove that another outlet is a biased radical right wing source is inadvisable.

Here's a question, if you had the power, what would you propose be done with the FNC?
Would you propose the same remedy for other news outlets which display the same level of distortion?

[preservanation]

Clinton said that her staff had sent her "some independent study" "which seemed to suggest that" "in terms of the fairness of the coverage," Fox News Channel has treated her campaign more fairly than MSNBC.http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/television/hillary_slams_msnbcpraises_fox_77235.asp

[Osborn F. Enready]

Why does left or right make a DAMN bit of difference?

Isn't it enough PROOF to the sheeple that they are being duped by BOTH SIDES, on multiple fronts, and do they know the media is one of the biggest lobbies in Washington?

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/9/4423

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11947

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n5_v30/ai_20588846

http://www.mmm-online.com/Wolters-Kluwer-opens-lobby-shop-in-Washington/article/57915/



All of the media subjectively descriminate according to their lead editors, and they all are biased as hell, usually along the lines of the two major parties establishment positions.

Fox is as biased as they come, to the right wing extreme.
CNN is as biased as Fox, but to the left wing.
All of the other media fits in somewhere in between, but shares the same affitinity toward the major party establishment positions...... gee, I wonder if its because they all have their hands dirty from the same sandbox?

Arguing which media source is least biased in the information age is like arguing which President is MOST corrupt...... they are ALL BIASED, and ALL CORRUPT, because the infection has been in place for over 157 years without a bandage change, and people aren't demanding change yet.

Its time to boycott them all, media and washington, and start living our own lives without them.

[preservanation]

The dissemination of news has always been a part of America and American politics.
What would you sugest to take it's place?
Or should we just be flying blind?
Media is very important. I would argue for more info rather than less. As folks get more savvy, they can filter through the BS and make up their own minds.
Freedom of the press will never go away, no matter what boycott you take up.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Preservanation said:
The dissemination of news has always been a part of America and American politics.
What would you sugest to take it's place?

Non-monopoly media outlets, as opposed to mega-multi-national monopoly media outlets.

Preservanation said:
Or should we just be flying blind?

No. It is the obligation of every American citizen to do one of two things.

1) Become an informed citizen, an informed voter and an informed consumer at their own trouble, expense, and cost of time and effort since the monopolies on media have made it so difficult... or
2) Suffer the consequences from a brainwashed, and or UNinformed, SELECTIVELY informed, or PARTIALLY informed electorate, consumer and citizens.

I am willing to do either, but the latter will require force for survival since it will accompany the completion of the police state, something I won't allow to happen while breathing. Some of us have prepared for either option to come about, but many haven't.

Preservanation said:
Media is very important. I would argue for more info rather than less. As folks get more savvy, they can filter through the BS and make up their own minds.
Freedom of the press will never go away, no matter what boycott you take up.

If you call what we have now, freedom of the press, I wonder what you would have called the early days of printed media in this country?

How large a market share can be owned by the same corporations, and still call it a "free press"?!? :ponder:

How much regulation can there be against new media to secure the established media, and still call it a free press? :ponder:

[bishop]

The dissemination of news has always been a part of America and American politics.
What would you sugest to take it's place?
Or should we just be flying blind?
Media is very important. I would argue for more info rather than less. As folks get more savvy, they can filter through the BS and make up their own minds.
Freedom of the press will never go away, no matter what boycott you take up.

personally, i don't think televised news provides decent information in general. all one needs to do is watch headline news for a bit to get the big stories, and maybe the news hour if you want some more intellectual reporting of the news. the exceptions are far outweighed by the rule..

since it's impossible to simultaneously be informed and boycott news agencies, i prefer to get all of my information from online sources.. and, i get the information from several sources to provide for some redundancy - that way i don't leave it up to a single source to tell me the whole story. that said, the majority of the country is still stuck on the mindless boob tube for their news - and televised news has done a horrible job at informing the public imo. it's just laziness in my eyes, because the time spent on watching tv could just as easily be spent gathering the information yourself. just seems to support my own opinion that people who primarily use tv as their source of information choose the stations they watch because they like to hear what they want to hear (i.e. they prefer a particular flavor of kool aid).

google's news portal, and watch.org (and no, i'm definitely not a pro-israel bible thumper) are two places i like to check out as a starting point. i just don't have the stomach to put up with the talking heads on tv..

[Easy90]

Become an informed citizen, an informed voter and an informed consumer at their own trouble, expense, and cost of time and effort since the monopolies on media have made it so difficult. (Osborn)

I agree that people need to become informed....particularly if they vote. However, it seems to me that Paul supporters who think they are enlightened and informed, are actually the biggest bunch of wacky loons on the planet. They think "being informed" means you swallow wild conspiracy theories and generally agree with the philosophy of anarchy. Wouldn't you agree?

[preservanation]

Suffer the consequences from a brainwashed, and or UNinformed, SELECTIVELY informed, or PARTIALLY informed electorate, consumer and citizens.I have faith in the majority to become smarter consumers of news than you do.
I think protecting them from info "for their own good" is the wrong way to go.
How large a market share can be owned by the same corporations, and still call it a "free press"?!?

How much regulation can there be against new media to secure the established media, and still call it a free press? I say let the free-market figure it out, if you start legislation to limit market share, you turn over the press to the gov.
Personally, I trust corps to respond to their consumers and market pressures more than the gov.
Once the gov has a say in it, they will never listen to us or care if we consume it or not...they will have control and that's that.

I think I see your point, but how would we go about what you propose and still adhere to the 1st amendment?[hr]We can look at MSNBC for a moment...
Owned by GE I think, Huge corp....but they still have responsibility to their share-holders. For years they saw their Market share plunge with MSNBC. They went on their merry way for a while spouting the leftest pov possible. I know, I watch them.
All of a sudden, something happened...a little more balance. Morning Joe w/ Scarborough (R) is wildly popular and their politics is wall to wall and balanced. Guess what? Viewership and market share climbed.
When all is said it is a business and the market will eventually correct itself...given time and the bottom line.

[brien]

Please take any of the last seven days from the front page of the NY Times and let me know the lies. Links would be real helpful. While you're at it, could you please post a link to the retraction or corrections section of any right wing publication of your