You liberal guys...I'm sorry you "moderates" need to check out "Slander" by Ann Coulter. Lots of facts there...havn't seen much to discredit her stance on the liberal bias in the media. Her Clinton treatise is very interesting also
You're kidding right? "havn't (sic) seen much to discredit her stance on the liberal bias in the media." The book has been roasted by a WIDE range of sources as being full of misquotes, half-truths, inaccuracies and outright lies. Here are just a couple of examples: http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020713.html http://www.sptimes.com/2002/08/26/Floridian/Bestseller_trampled_u.shtml http://slannder.homestead.com/files/slanndermain.html
Guys Guys Guys, Come on it reads like this Politics and truth ????? Legal ethics ???? Military intelligence ???? this is like watching a tennis match There is NO objectivity at the fringe of either side.... and there is some truth in what both sides say…. most successful politicians are liars and some are scoundrels and liars We are largely in the position we are in now do to Clinton’s “caught with my Dic& out" foreign policy and military strategy….
"There is NO objectivity at the fringe of either side.... and there is some truth in what both sides say…." What is the point of an argument if you don't feel strongly one way or another? "We are largely in the position we are in now do to Clinton’s “caught with my Dic& out" foreign policy and military strategy…." What is "Clinton's 'caught with my dic& out' foreign policy and military strategy"? I don't get it.
Thanks for clearing it up for me. Seriously, what do Clinton's sex problems have to do with his foreign policy or military philosophy?
Awww c'mon, give me a harder question! The answer - cuz we can! I perosnally like baiting both of the extremist sides here because while each side has good points neither one is anywhere near totally right in ANY situation. Pretty amusing really. Still can't see hwo any logical human being can fight so hard for one political party or it's stance. Don't see how anyone can take any of the more extreme media seriously either... Rush making sense? Ain't ever gonna happen. Some of the others do on occasion but not often enough for me to listen to them blather on. As for the liberal media - it is true - but I think it's because they've hired too many Candian anchors. FWIW I did here Rather or Jennings or one of those cookie cutter white dudes make some ocmments in the beginning fo all this that were obviously biased against Bush, thinly veiled as being "news". I don't however think that's the view or intent of the news orgs as a whole, after all their entire job is ratings and income. They'll report the news the way the public likes to hear it - NBC and National Geographic firing Arnett is proof of this.
I hope somebody listens to you on this one, cuz when I brought in the past it up nobody seemed to get the point, they'd rather be Junior Rushies and bitch about "bias." . All the media oulets (save NPR and educational TV) are HUGE corporations and the editorial boards have to pay attention to the bottom line. The "bias" is decided by ratings... if the public majority doesn't like what's broadcast/published it will change in a hurry. Editorial boards pay strict attention to listener/reader feedback in the way of ratings. Editorial boards are responsible to stockholders; they kill stories and decide what's aired depending on reader/viewer ratings, not their personal political stance. Staff, myself and other freelancers have all had damn good articles squashed or edited because "our readers don't want that." I've also seen an expensive investigative series cancelled because it angered a maor advertiser. I'll end by re-quoting the Kahuna Mongo "after all their entire job is ratings and income. They'll report the news the way the public likes to hear it." (How's that for sucking up to the boss?)
I think my official title is Hey You or Lifter of Heavy Items. Something along those lines, I know for a fact that boss is not a part of it...
To quote my earlier post Your representation of feedback management will not stand up to mild scrutiny.... all you have to do to justify your lean/representation is poll/solicit feedback in the right place with a question phrased to deliver support for your position, it is like a graph, you can make it appear to represent what ever you want just by adjusting the scales....... Editors or editorial boards, news directors and politicians target the position they wish to represent, then the questions are developed to support the desired position. It is allot like drawing the bull’s eye around the arrow after it has been shot, dead center hit every time. It is no different than the stick your finger in the air political polls that are "trotted out" to support a position, if it fly’s, if the lemming like masses follow it, hey it has to have been right. This applies equally to both sides of the fence. Furthermore it shows that our journalist (or our editors/directors at least) are going the way of the French, they are in desperate need of a spine transplant. Amazing that with all the history recorded in the world (civilizations and kingdoms have collapsed as a result) people act like we need to be told what we want to hear, not what we need to hear. At times it may not be popular but things need to be said. Fundamentally this issue permeates most of the major economic and political issues in this country and at the core is the greedy search for an easy buck.
Man, are you off! I haven't listened to Rush in months and Hannity in weeks. Now, Boortz I listen to religiously.
I listened to Pacifica radio on the way to work...just to broaden my political leans and have to report that after 5 minutes of how the Iraqi war and treatment of lab rats were the same thing. I think I'm good to go for another 5 years before I have another listen. Great music, but STFU! David
Does anybody besides the far right take Ann Coulter seriously? http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2002/06/27/coulter/print.html
