Anyone Catch McCain's 'Casual' Stroll Through Baghdad?

[VRWC]

Let me expand then. A "Conservative slant" is not my problem. I do respect our free press, though they have problems. I think the only reason people think CNN, NBC or whatever is "Liberal" is because they want to completely avoid reality. The "Conservative Slant" is nothing more than outlandish bafoonery. Rush doesn''t have a "slant," he has an agenda. There is a difference. The right wing media is purely political. It's a farce, a lie, its pure propaganda. Iraq IS a fv##en disaster and the right wing media deals with this by simply saying you can't believe the media. I mean WTF??? The MSM may have its problems, but it isn't some liberal entity that is out to get Conservatives.

Do I listen to a lot of right wing radio? No. But even the small amount of time I have it on there are so many lies, distortions, false arguments and pure humbug that I really do blow a fuse over it. Then I see people who are intelligent, have decent jobs and all repeating the same absolute crap and I see that the propaganda works. So McCain comes along to "prove" the media all wrong and ends up looking like a fool. Serves him right, crazy old nut.

 

Golden boy, Don't get confused with the "Press" and a conservative talk show. Of course Rush has a slant, that's his gig. The problem with the MSM is that they say they are neutral but they clearly slant to the left. So the "Right Wing Media" is purely political. Nice statement there Molson, If it wasn't political it wouldn't be "Right Wing" now would it. I can count 8 major news organizations that clearly lean to the left, but Fox News that has a different political view and reporting method has to be the one that is a farce, a lie, and pure propaganda. I’d say it’s a pretty good business model. Fox clearly has the ratings and that the other News organizations are trying to discredit it. The MSM had no competition until Fox News and the WEB arrived. Now all of the old news media outlets can’t control the data flow any more and they are suffering. (CNN, NBC, NYT, Wash Post, etc.) What do they do? They fire up this vast left wing conspiracy and try like hell to discrete all other forms of news that are invading their domain. It’s understandable but in the end will not work. People are dumb in this country (look at yourself) but not as dumb as the left think.

 

So the MSM is not political, is non-biased, 100% reliable, and they report only the news with no commentary or preconceived political slant or agenda! Just like Al Jazeera I’d say.

[SilverNRed]

1) No, its just that the right wing in this country isn't. See Terri Schivo incident if you need further proof.

 

2) Maybe because you misread what I wrote. The guy said he was fair, which is what I thought was such a joke

 

3) He's a major opinion maker on the right. And since John McCain was repeating his "You can't trust the media" mantra and got made to look like a complete fool we should look at the right wing media for what it is, namely propaganda.

1. Right, because every conservative is defined by the Teri Shiavo thing.

 

2. It's equally funny if you're so upset that you met someone who liked O'Reilly because he thought he was fair. Gasp! The horror!

 

3. Rush Limbaugh makes up his own opinions and people listen if they agree. And if he's so important to what conservatives must think, then how come you're the only one on this message board who is always talking about what he said?

[erynthered]

1. Right, because every conservative is defined by the Teri Shiavo thing.

 

Thank you.

[molson_golden2002]

1. Right, because every conservative is defined by the Teri Shiavo thing.

 

2. It's equally funny if you're so upset that you met someone who liked O'Reilly because he thought he was fair. Gasp! The horror!

1) So many were that Congress and the President bent over backwards to appease them. But forget terri, think Iraq war. Your comments on trusting the lying Cheney--Mr. Last Throes--is proof enough the right doesn't deal in reality. The right just makes up their own reality.

 

2) No, thinking he was fair was the funny part

[molson_golden2002]

Golden boy, Don't get confused with the "Press" and a conservative talk show. Of course Rush has a slant, that's his gig. The problem with the MSM is that they say they are neutral but they clearly slant to the left. So the "Right Wing Media" is purely political. Nice statement there Molson, If it wasn't political it wouldn't be "Right Wing" now would it. I can count 8 major news organizations that clearly lean to the left, but Fox News that has a different political view and reporting method has to be the one that is a farce, a lie, and pure propaganda. I’d say it’s a pretty good business model. Fox clearly has the ratings and that the other News organizations are trying to discredit it. The MSM had no competition until Fox News and the WEB arrived. Now all of the old news media outlets can’t control the data flow any more and they are suffering. (CNN, NBC, NYT, Wash Post, etc.) What do they do? They fire up this vast left wing conspiracy and try like hell to discrete all other forms of news that are invading their domain. It’s understandable but in the end will not work. People are dumb in this country (look at yourself) but not as dumb as the left think.

 

So the MSM is not political, is non-biased, 100% reliable, and they report only the news with no commentary or preconceived political slant or agenda! Just like Al Jazeera I’d say.

That's why I thought McCain's stroll through Baghdad was so funny. He sure proved the "liberal" media wrong! Face it, you call the truth "liberal" because you don't like it. Gees, I remember during the Monica thing CNN--the Clinton News Network?--showing Monica hugging Clinton before and after every commercial break. Ya, real liberal slant there.

[SilverNRed]

1) So many were that Congress and the President bent over backwards to appease them. But forget terri, think Iraq war. Your comments on trusting the lying Cheney--Mr. Last Throes--is proof enough the right doesn't deal in reality. The right just makes up their own reality.

Actually, I never said "I trust Dick Cheney." I said he was probably more trustworthy than reporters. Which is really saying that I really, really don't trust reporters.

 

I'm sorry your reading comprehension is so incredibly poor that you never understood that. Or worse, maybe you did understand that but just think you can automatically win an argument by saying "You trust Dick Cheney!" over and over in different threads. Not sure which is more pathetic.

[Simon]

The problem with the MSM is that they say they are neutral but they clearly slant to the left.....I can count 8 major news organizations that clearly lean to the left

Face it, you call the truth "liberal" because you don't like it

 

Often times when I see retarded statements like this, the Theory of Relativity pops into my head. I'd suggest you two check it out but I imagine you'd both just chalk it up as some evil slanted conspiracy from "those" guys since you're both pretty much the same moron.

[Chilly]

Power Sources

[SilverNRed]

Power Sources

Just for fun, I decided to type in "Olbermann" into the search for the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) website. And here's what I got:

 

Link

 

Too Many Liberals?

Olbermann says MSNBC bosses upset by liberal guests

10/27/05

As FAIR founder Jeff Cohen--who went on to be a senior producer on MSNBC's Donahue show--explained to the American Journalism Review (12/04-1/05): "In the last months of Donahue, we were ordered to book more right-wing guests than left-wing, more pro-war than antiwar to balance the liberalism of host Phil Donahue." Cohen added that orders that Donahue's guestlist favor conservatives were stated repeatedly to the show's staff.

FAIR was founded by Donahue's old producer who was upset that the bosses wanted people who might actually disagree with the host? For that matter, has Olbermann ever interviewed anyone who didn't agree with him?

 

But has MSNBC truly "steered out of that time," as Olbermann suggests? If MSNBC management were genuinely worried about ideological balance, then the fact that the channel currently has two one-hour programs hosted by well-known conservatives (Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough) and none hosted by liberals would be of considerable concern. Or MSNBC could fret over Hardball's right-leaning panel discussion after a 2004 election debate (FAIR Action Alert, 10/12/04), or the Hardball "town meeting" on the Iraq war that skewed heavily towards the pro-war side (FAIR Action Alert, 6/29/05). The group Media Matters for America (10/21/05) recently documented that Hardball's discussions of the Plame Wilson leak case frequently skewed to the right, citing nine examples of panels that included only conservatives, or conservatives "balanced" by centrists; the group found only one case where a panel similarly leaned to the left.

 

Having too many conservatives on, it seems, doesn't bother anyone in power at MSNBC.

So somehow an article with Olbermann's name in the title comes to the conclusion that MSNBC has no one-hour programs hosted by liberals.

 

Great website. I needed that.

[Chilly]

I figured you would attempt to discount Media Tenor's research because it was listed on FAIR's site. Its why I didn't mention anything more about it. Typical.

[SilverNRed]

I figured you would attempt to discount Media Tenor's research because it was listed on FAIR's site. Its why I didn't mention anything more about it. Typical.

Yeah, sorry I read the website you posted.

[Alaska Darin]

I figured you would attempt to discount Media Tenor's research because it was listed on FAIR's site. Its why I didn't mention anything more about it. Typical.

Did they teach you that at UT?

[Chilly]

Yeah, sorry I read the website you posted.

 

Yeah, thats exactly what I was saying.

 

Media Tenor Ltd., their research, and their conclusions are all credible even if the site that is using it is not. The reason why I posted a link to it on FAIR's site is because its the only damn one I could find.

[DC Tom]

Power Sources

 

I stopped reading when it called Bernard Goldberg a conservative.

[Chilly]

I stopped reading when it called Bernard Goldberg a conservative.

 

Heh, wish I could find the actual research somewhere on the web. The FAIR article has both results from the research and their own interpretations.

[SilverNRed]

Yeah, thats exactly what I was saying.

 

Media Tenor Ltd., their research, and their conclusions are all credible even if the site that is using it is not. The reason why I posted a link to it on FAIR's site is because its the only damn one I could find.

 

Credible results like:

Partisan imbalance

 

This study was based on data compiled by Media Tenor Ltd., a non-partisan, German-based media analysis firm with an office in New York City. During 2001, for each report on ABC World News Tonight, NBC Nightly News and CBS Evening News, Media Tenor researchers coded the topic, time period, location, protagonists and detailed source information (including partisan affiliation, gender, and race or nationality, when determinable). If special programming pre-empted the news shows’ broadcast in New York City, transcripts were analyzed when available. For this study, data was analyzed for the time period between January 1 and December 31, 2001, which included 14,632 sources in 18,765 individual reports.

 

In 2001, the voices of Washington’s elite politicians were the dominant sources of opinion on the network evening news, making up one in three Americans (and more than one in four of all sources) who were quoted on all topics throughout the year. Of sources who had an identifiable partisan affiliation, 75 percent were Republican and only 24 percent Democrats. A mere 1 percent were third-party representatives or independents.

 

The three networks varied only slightly in their selection of partisan sources. CBS had the most Republicans and the fewest Democrats (76 percent vs. 23 percent); NBC (75 percent vs. 25 percent) and ABC (73 percent vs. 27 percent) were marginally less imbalanced. CBS had the most independents (1.2 percent), followed by ABC (0.7 percent) and NBC (an almost invisible 0.2 percent).

 

Small as they are, these latter figures may overstate the presence of independent politicians on the nightly news. Sen. James Jeffords, the centrist Vermont Republican who broke with his party in May (giving Democrats control of the Senate), made up 83 percent of the independent sources who were quoted throughout the year, suggesting that networks highlighted independent politicians mainly when they impacted the fates of the two major parties. The only avowedly anti-establishment independent who appeared in 2001, Ralph Nader, made up 3 percent of independent or third-party sources-- 0.03 percent of all politicians quoted.

 

Although the attacks of September 11 exacerbated the tilt toward Republicans, the difference was pronounced beforehand as well. Prior to the attacks Republicans made up 68 percent, Democrats 31 percent and independents 1 percent of partisan sources. Afterward, Republican sources surged to 87 percent, with Democrats (13 percent) and independents (0.1 percent) falling even further behind.

Partisan sources were 3 to 1 Republicans to Democrats in 2001? Yep, nothing to be skeptical about there.

[Chilly]

Credible results like:

Partisan sources were 3 to 1 Republicans to Democrats in 2001? Yep, nothing to be skeptical about there.

 

Because it doesn't fit into your pre conceived idea about the media?

[SilverNRed]

Because it doesn't fit into your pre conceived idea about the media?

Because I watch the news and I read the paper.

 

Who am I supposed to believe -- my eyes and ears or a study by this group I've never heard of cited by some ridiculous website that you have access to?

 

The whole study is "There's no liberal media because President Bush is on TV a lot and he's Republican." Genius.

[HeHateMe78]

Right, exactly, only liberals are in touch with reality.

 

I'm honestly still super amused that you made the fact that you met someone who liked Bill O'Reilly the grand finale of your rant. Like that's so awful and/or incredible that you had to mention it here. How much pain, tension, and anxiety does it really cause you just knowing that O'Reilly exists and some people like him?

 

And since when is Rush Limbaugh considered a reporter? He's a talk show host.

Rush is an entertainer. Anyone that takes what he spews seriously, needs to invigorate their minute intelligence

[molson_golden2002]

Often times when I see retarded statements like this, the Theory of Relativity pops into my head. I'd suggest you two check it out but I imagine you'd both just chalk it up as some evil slanted conspiracy from "those" guys since you're both pretty much the same moron.

Hey, why don't you contribute a real thought or two to the discussion? Not bright enough there simple Simon?