The liberal media - documented

Hey! Big Floppies!! You did not originally "basically say that fox has a conservative bias. . . " If you had said that I would have understood what you meant. Now that you have attempted to qualify/weasel/restate/clarify I see your point. I don't agree with the conseervative viewpoint that the media is domoinated by liberals, but at least I now see your point.

And why would I need to obscure your point when you do such a good obfuscation yourself?

Finally, I don't chase ambulances - I get a page and then meet them at the ER, retainer agreement in hand.

 

You missed the point. I must have had a Karsonian moment. The point is that there is much bias in the media -- from the left and the right. To whine about Liberal bias is just crybaby BS and is indicative of the pussification of the right wing in this country.

Rodger

PS: I slay me!!

 

Your trying to tell me that a smart lawyer like yourself can't understand this?

I love this from rogers link:

So it is a war on journalism to show a conservative bias and not a liberal bias?? What a joke.


I quoted your link about ex-fox peeps talking about the conservative bias at fox, then I said why is it ok for a liberal but not conservative bias. A big smart lawyer like yourself could surely make the connection, it is hardly obscure.

The only one being a weasel here is you, but I'm sure that is second nature in your profession.

Ok, other than fox, what other major tv networks show any conservative bias ???

Nothing like modern technology to keep you bloodsuckers on your toes.

 

You mean you woke up, face down in the gutter and an empty bottle of tequila in your hand also???

Think you could back up your claim with some examples of the other tv networks that show a conservative bias, the one that show a liberal bias, and the ones that you think show no bias at all.

 

Right = Fox.

Left = NPR/PRI.

Most others in the middle.

Next.

 

I've never been that Karsonian.

 

npr is not a tv network, not sure what pri is.

I find it hard to believe that you think abc/nbc/cbs are in the middle. With their main news programs being anchored by Jennings/Brokaw/Rather. All of them are heavily slanted to the left. NbC's morning show, Katie couric and Matt Lauer, both far left leaning.
How about ABC ( i think it was ABC) running a list of all the soldiers that died in Iraq, supposedly to honor them, and not ONE soldier that died in Afghanistan. Why would they have been so disrespectfull to our brave soldiers that lost their lives in Afghanistan? It would seem that they don't think the soldiers that died there would have a negative effect on Bush, so they did not honor them. That is just one example, another would be the ass licking that Jennings gave saddam, when he reported on his court appearance, I really got the impression, from jennings description that he actually admires saddam. When Dan Rather interviewed saddam and also licked his ass, nope, no bias there.

Who was that other asshole...... the one that had an interview with saddam, While we were at war with him, and praised him and his army for battling fiercely back at America's forces..... Peter Arnott I believe it was. He said saddam and his forces were brilliant and brave and powerfull... all obvious lies, they went down quicker than your sister at prom :P .The network that employed him actually defended him, until the public outcry over his treasonous statements forced them to fire him.

What about the lack of coverage in the mainstream press about how well the economy is doing?? They wouldn't want to let the masses know that the economy is on an upswing, no that would take away their ammo, so they just let that slide. Nope, no bias there

 

You are right. NPR and the other leftie network are radio, not TV.

From my viewpoint, most networks are middle of the road pansy networks that are afraid to do real incisive investigative reporting. There is very little discussion of how bad the economy is getting or how "free trade" is destroying the service sector of our economy, after having already destroyed manufacturing in the US. There is almost no discussion about why we have failed to get Osama despite TWAT (The War Against Terror).

And when is the last time when you heard a segment on any network supporting labor against capital -- I haven't in a very long time.

So the traditional issue of the left, labor vs. capital, is not even an issue that is raised by the media, so lefties like me don't think that the middle of the road networks are anything more than pawns of capital.

 

Ever think it MAYBE had something to do with the fact that if they were interviewing Saddam they were nice because of all the armed guards loyal to Hussein to the death? Or the fact that if they DIDN'T stroke his ego, Saddam wouldn't answer their questions, would leave, or worse would claim he was insulted and have them shot or thrown into one of his torture camps?

Saddam, in addition to being a murderer and a torturer, causing genocide, invading countries, and teaching his sons the finer points of being a tyrannical dictator in his spare time, is a megalomaniac. If you want him to give you any answers or talk to you, you have to . . . I repeat YOU HAVE TO stroke his ego. You're basically comparing Dan Rather to a drunk chick putting out on prom night because he knew how to be diplomatic? If he'd asked Saddam why he'd had millions brutally murdered a/o murdered, oppressed his people, and by the was wasn't he in fact tied into the 9/11 bombings that proved he was connected with Al Qaida and further shows how he violated UN Sanctions giving us a moral obligation to turn Iraq into a lake . . . What do you think would have happened?

Sorry, but you're dead wrong on that one. You might not have liked the Dan Rather interview, but if he'd done anything else but mask his questions in well-worded boot-licking to stroke Saddam's ego and get him talking they would have gotten nowhere. Maybe worse.

-Cheers

 

Sorry, missed this one. Two reasons they aren't comvering the economic recovery.

1) ALL media in the U.S. is sensationalistic. That's their job; to entertain and sell. Some are less so than others, but the goal of The National Enquirer, ESPN, and The New York Times is the same. To entertain you so they'll sell you stuff. Since bad news sells more papers than good news . . . There you go.

2) It's not like the economy is skyrocketing. Unemployment is down because people have settled for jobs they're far overqualified for. The economy is crawling out of a huge hole at a perpetual snail's pace. So yes, it's better, but only relative to the last couple of years. I fail to see how that qualifies as an economic boom or how failing to report it as such reflects some conspiracy of a nationwide liberal bias.

-Cheers

 

So you are saying Dan Rather sold out, comprimised his journalitic beliefs so he could go to Iraq and have a pointless cheering session for Saddam?

 

Bottom line: CBS did it for entertainment value and Rather did the interview the way he did probably because it kept Hussein from leaving and kept him from potentially getting killed. It wasn't a real subjective interview, but under the circumstances that's probably about the best you were going to get.

Maybe it would have been better to not have gone at all, but what I got out of it was how dillusional Hussein was. Did it address the issues with a rock-hard stance? No. I would have loved it if it had, but that would never have happened. This is a man who has killed family members for lesser insults than challenging him on how he runs his country or accusing him of crimes against humanity. If I'm interviewing Charles Manson in a room full of his fanatical followers, I'm probably going to sweet talk him a little more than if he's bound in chains and a strait jacket in prison.

So given the circumstances, what more do you want?

-Cheers

 

What you seem to be infering is, if you can't do an honest story you shouldn't do one at all. You will never sell air time that way.

 

Sorry for the slow reply IYC. Server problems.

You know how this one would come out. It would be the fault of Hostess for making them so tasty that the typical American fatass could not resist.

 

Unfortunate fact #1: This pretty much sums-up the stance of the owners/producers.

Unfortunate fact #2: They feel no need to label such psuedo-journalism as just that. In fact, they constantly blur the line between entertainment, news and journalism until many people can't distinguish one from another.

 

I think the biggest joke is you people who actually believe that there is any difference whatsoever, ideologically or otherwise, between one bunch o'lying bastards and another.

 

I'd give you a but you left out the compound modifier "money-grubbing" before "bastards", so you only get a

 

Whoops. My bad. I was under the impression that the general heading of "politics" implied the modifier.

 

I just spit out my coffee....