Magox Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 oddly enough, why is it that the "liberal" media is allowed to be questioned, and yet that any criticism of Faux News is verboten. Pravda lives, i guess. jw Simple, I´ve made this point many times before, Fox news is the counterweight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Simple, I´ve made this point many times before, Fox news is the counterweight. and yet, not open to criticism? how convenient. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 and yet, not open to criticism? how convenient. jw Did I say that? Or are you just putting words in my mouth? mg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Did I say that? Or are you just putting words in my mouth? mg so, why not provide a response with some substance to it, rather than simply throw out some weak "counterweight" crapola. just because it's a counterweight doesn't make it meaningful. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 so, why not provide a response with some substance to it, rather than simply throw out some weak "counterweight" crapola. just because it's a counterweight doesn't make it meaningful. jw You asked a question, and I simply answered it. Just because you don´t like the answer doesn´t make it any less true. And please, don´t lecture about substance and meaningfulness when your first response to this thread was here's a question: is Sean Hannity impartial? Must of had a long night mg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) right, the economy needs to continue sucking for a little while longer because who the hell cares about the people. it's all about scoring debating points, no? and that's the trouble with the Republicans right now. they are failing to provide a vision as to what they will do, and instead attempting to score debating points by poking holes in what someone has done -- not for the betterment of the country, but for the betterment of themselves. it's disappointing. at a time when an incumbent president is vulnerable, and there are bona fide questions about his ability to forcefully govern, the opposition continues down a winding road of blind-foolery by standing up for the rich, who have contributed in putting the country in this mess to begin with. this has the looks of Barry Goldwater vs. LBJ redux. jw Hey John.....................look up...........thats the point of the article going right over your head. Your reliance on cliches of "the rich" and "faux news" exposes you pretty quickly. The AP "news" article had editorial comments in it that were intended to degrade the GOP argument...........you cannot even address that , so you go off on tangents.......... . Edited January 9, 2012 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Hey John.....................look up...........thats the point of the article going right over your head. Your reliance on cliches of "the rich" and "faux news" exposes you pretty quickly. The AP "news" article had editorial comments in it that were intended to degrade the GOP argument...........you cannot even address that , so you go off on tangents.......... . yes, and "liberal" media is not a cliche. get over yourself. jw You asked a question, and I simply answered it. Just because you don´t like the answer doesn´t make it any less true. And please, don´t lecture about substance and meaningfulness when your first response to this thread was Must of had a long night mg so you have no response. thanks. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 yes, and "liberal" media is not a cliche. get over yourself. jw so you have no response. thanks. jw No, I would say this is an admission of not having a response. mg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 No, I would say this is an admission of not having a response. mg predictable, i guess. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 predictable, i guess. jw Face it jw, you got nothin. mg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) yes, and "liberal" media is not a cliche. get over yourself. jw Yes it is a cliche, but again your laughably defensive, non-response exposes the weakness of your reply. . Edited January 9, 2012 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Simple, I´ve made this point many times before, Fox news is the counterweight. the difference, as i see it, between the media on the right and left is conviction. as others have stated, people who choose journalism as a profession generally have an idealistic nature which lends itself to liberalism. their potential bias is often based on conviction. i think this is generally less true for those on the right, especially commentators on the far right. i don't believe limbaugh believes much of the stuff he says but then he hides under the veil of "entertainment". he and his ilk really are propagandists who cynically work for their masters and with great effect. i wouldn't be surprised if hannity really believes his message but savage? how do you go from far left liberal to fascist? bitterness? disillusionment? maybee but i think it's much more likely a case of personal economics. in short, i think left leaning journalist view their job as more of a vocation while right leaning more often see it as a good paycheck. i'm sure this is overgeneralized but i'm convinced there's truth to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) as others have stated, people who choose journalism as a profession generally have an idealistic nature which lends itself to liberalism. You had me through here. The rest was just something you spouted that makes you feel a little better. Edited January 9, 2012 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 oddly enough, why is it that the "liberal" media is allowed to be questioned, and yet that any criticism of Faux News is verboten. Pravda lives, i guess. jw Because the liberal media doesn't admit they've got a liberal slant, whereas FoxSnooze is perfectly open (retardedly so - they even claim their satellites are "conservative") about their conservative bias. And because, as a conservative outlet in a liberally-slanted industry, they're "counter-culture", which in this day and age is completely above question. And furthermore...what the !@#$ are you talking about? FoxSnooze above criticism? Yeah, they get a pass all the time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Liberal Media Bias- Stage 2 Scott wrote this morning about the absurdity of Republican debates being moderated by liberal activists like George Stephanopoulos and David Gregory, who, as Scott put it, are “on a mission to take down the candidates by making them appear crazy or by separating them from the base of the Republican Party.” But that is just stage one of the liberal press’s effort to control the presidential election cycle. Stage two comes when Democratic Party activists posing as journalists report on the proceedings. From now until November, the leading offender likely will be the Associated Press. Today the AP described last night’s debate in November; its account began: The AP’s gratuitous editorializing is intended to suggest that Romney’s assertion that Obama’s policies have worsened the recession and weakened the recovery is self-evidently false. But that is absurd: the nation’s “declining unemployment rate” is all the way down to 8.5%, whereas it was 7.6% when Obama took office. Moreover, that comparison understates the deterioration in the nation’s employment since Obama took office, since hundreds of thousands of people have given up and left the labor force. Further, as I noted here, the slow rate of job creation under Obama has made this the slowest recovery from a major recession on record. So it is the Associated Press, not Mitt Romney, that has no idea what it is talking about. Nevertheless, this sort of misleading, biased and outright false editorializing will we constant from now until November. . ok, b-man,let's try this. you can call it editorializing when others call it providing perspective. it's something that happens in the business, because News doesn't happen in a vaccuum. it's no different than would be expected of any good reporter on the sports beat: Drew Bledsoe still regards the starting job to be his next season, despite his struggles this year. that was something which many of us wrote after 2004. was that editorializing? you tell me. how is this false, when Bledsoe did in fact struggle and, some might argue, cost the Bills a playoff berth by losing that fumble in the finale against the Steelers. how are the job numbers wrong? they showed improvement. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 ok, b-man,let's try this. you can call it editorializing when others call it providing perspective. it's something that happens in the business, because News doesn't happen in a vaccuum. it's no different than would be expected of any good reporter on the sports beat: Drew Bledsoe still regards the starting job to be his next season, despite his struggles this year. that was something which many of us wrote after 2004. was that editorializing? you tell me. how is this false, when Bledsoe did in fact struggle and, some might argue, cost the Bills a playoff berth by losing that fumble in the finale against the Steelers. how are the job numbers wrong? they showed improvement. jw George Snuffleupogus asked Romney for a job by job accounting in his latest debate but asked for no such detail on Obama's report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 If main stream media is really that Liberal then someone should tell them to cut down on commentators from The Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute, Reason Foundation, Mercatus Center, and Ludwig von Mises Institute- these right-wing talking heads are pervasive in the media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 um, there's this perception that the media leans to the left. whether or not that's true, at the very least blind foolery isn't part of the equation, no? jw I don't consider him part of the "media." he doesn't report. He bloviates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 If main stream media is really that Liberal then someone should tell them to cut down on commentators from The Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute, Reason Foundation, Mercatus Center, and Ludwig von Mises Institute- these right-wing talking heads are pervasive in the media. Again..................and again...............and again, its not the commentators (on either side ) It is the slant given to the actual news stories on the front page and on the "news" report. john wawrow, on 09 January 2012 - 12:45 PM, said: ok, b-man,let's try this. you can call it editorializing when others call it providing perspective. it's something that happens in the business, because News doesn't happen in a vaccuum. it's no different than would be expected of any good reporter on the sports beat: Drew Bledsoe still regards the starting job to be his next season, despite his struggles this year. that was something which many of us wrote after 2004. was that editorializing? you tell me. how is this false, when Bledsoe did in fact struggle and, some might argue, cost the Bills a playoff berth by losing that fumble in the finale against the Steelers. how are the job numbers wrong? they showed improvement. jw Thanks for the actual response, but it still falls short. Your Bledsoe example IS still editorializing.........The AP follwed a direct quote from Mr. Romney with the administration's persective (the numbers went up), but NOT the perspective of many others (listed in threads here) that the numbers DO show a continuing weak recovery. IMO the AP only provided the Dem opinion in their story to undercut Mr. Romney's quote. Thanks. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 ok, b-man,let's try this. you can call it editorializing when others call it providing perspective. it's something that happens in the business, because News doesn't happen in a vaccuum. it's no different than would be expected of any good reporter on the sports beat: Drew Bledsoe still regards the starting job to be his next season, despite his struggles this year. that was something which many of us wrote after 2004. was that editorializing? you tell me. how is this false, when Bledsoe did in fact struggle and, some might argue, cost the Bills a playoff berth by losing that fumble in the finale against the Steelers. how are the job numbers wrong? they showed improvement. jw Are you seriously comparing reporting on Bledsoe's last season to the slant that some business journalists put in their stories? How about the final version that comes out of editing? In any event, why should Hannity be thought of in a different than Ohlbermann? Both are blowhard who push an ideological point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts