Heh, it was so grainy and poorly done I didn't even read it...
Printable View
Heh, it was so grainy and poorly done I didn't even read it...
I don't think there will be a lawsuit. Except during election time, I do not think that the "equal time" doctrine can be enforced (And I think they might have even done away with that).
Media can decide what they will and will not print or broadcast. Anyone who doesn't like it can buy their own radio station/newspaper/TV station. Lord knows ... before Fox, it was rare to hear a conservative (or even unbiased) viewpoint among the outpouring of liberal spin on CNN/ABC/CBS/NBC.
I never claimed the 'right' were great spellers... I think Quayle proved that! LOLQuote:
Originally posted by [AK]Abaddon
It was in reference to the graphic with Altman, Sarandon and Baldwin. "Intolerant" is misspelled in that art. It sucks to be an editor. :-P
More from ol' meatball eyes.
http://www.ananova.com/entertainment...sm_744681.html
Not an argument here or anything but just an observation.
I have seen on this board and others where "conservatives" complain about a Liberal Media. I have seen and heard most "liberals" complain about a Conservative Media. And they all point to the same news organizations... CNN, MSNBC, Etc... Fox is hardly mentioned since it is more sensationalizm than news (get upset if you will but that is what I have seen).
It seems to me that if BOTH sides are claiming that the media is biased to the other then the media is probably doing an OK job at remaining in the middle. Either that or they aren't reporting anything.
Just my observations, trying to look at things without the paranoid world view.
Newspapers and the major networks (NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN) have long been considered liberal. There is nothing conservative about any of them.
Conservatives have made great strides in the area of radio (Rush, Hannity, etc) and now more recently, Fox News.
I don't think it's any coincidence that Fox News is now the highest rated news network.
The liberals aren't too happy about this, and have become quite vocal (listen to Tom Daschel whine about conservative radio...LOL funny.)
For years the Dems enjoyed media coverage slanted in their favor, but that monopoly is clearly over.
How is FOX News any more sensational than CNN or MSNBC? I see more effort to deliver balanced coverage from FOX News than from any other cable TV outlet, bar none. In fact, FOX News is the only mainstream news source that even tries to be unbiased, in my opinion.
If you don't believe that the media in America tilts to the left, do yourself a favor and read Bias by Bernard Goldberg.
Geraldo as a war correspondant in Afganistan?
Rush is all showmanship and all the little debate programs are nothing more than yelling matches.
Again we run into a problem of opinions here. I can see that opinions are just that, and I knew my statement about Fox would garner replies because some people just buy into the whole show.
I don't. /shrug
It all smacks of propganda and I care little for it. Think for yourselves instead of what the Limbaugh's of the world tell you to think. I think most news is out to gather eyes to watch the adds to make the money. I think they are biased to whatever viewpoint they think will give them the dollar. You can think whatever you want, don't bother me none. I have more belief in greed being the primary motivator of the media than politics.
If you want more proof that, by and large, America has grown tired of liberal propaganda and hypocrisy (as if the landslide in the midterm elections isn't proof enough), just look at right-wing conservative talk show host Michael Savage's new book, The Savage Nation. It's #1 on the NY Times bestseller list and the 15th bestselling item on Amazon.com (it was #1 for a time, and I saw it at #5 a couple weeks ago). Sean Hannity, another conservative talk show host, is now at #79 with Let Freedom Ring. In contrast, Al and Tipper Gore's new book, Joined at the Heart (gag) is currently ranked at 10,087 on Amazon, while Joseph Lieberman's book An Amazing Adventure is soaring at 8,462. The sales ranks speak for themselves; America is fed up with the New Democrat®. We're done with the Clintons, Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi (who made me want to puke last night), and the rest of the New Democrats®. All they do is attack and criticize the policies of the Bush administration while failing to come up with any alternatives of their own. They're old, tired, and out of ideas.
I'll give you the Geraldo point, Wid. He's an overly flamboyant, unprofessional blowhard.
Limbaugh doesn't tell anyone "what to think". He presents his arguments, and the listener is free to decide. Some of his stances are half-baked and others, in my opinion, make a whole lot of sense.
The difference between Limbaugh and most other conservative talk show hosts is that he delivers his content with a lot of the same snarky, smirky style that the Dems are so fond of.
And this irks them to no end.
Of course, anybody can claim anything. But conservative charges of liberal press bias aren't subjective feelings, they're hard facts. In fact, there is so much proof of liberal bias in American news that it's easier to start with the question: What kind of proof would convince you? If there is any kind of proof you would accept, it's probably available.Quote:
Originally posted by [AK]Widowmaker
I have seen on this board and others where "conservatives" complain about a Liberal Media. I have seen and heard most "liberals" complain about a Conservative Media. And they all point to the same news organizations...
It seems to me that if BOTH sides are claiming that the media is biased to the other then the media is probably doing an OK job at remaining in the middle. Either that or they aren't reporting anything.
There have been several polls measuring the political beliefs of those in the news business. The proportion of journalists voting for the Democrat in presidential elections has never been measured below 85%. Usually the figures are in the low nineties.
Bernard Goldberg was in TV news for over 20 years, and is himself a liberal. He recently wrote a book documenting the bias from a behind-the-scenes perspective, and explaining where it comes from.
Or you can demonstrate the bias in specific news stories. The most recent example:
Trent Lott, senator from Mississippi, said that things would be better if a pro-segregationist had won the presidency in 1948. He ignited a media firestorm. A Nexis search will turn up over 1000 stories on him.
Patty Murray, senator from Washington, told a group of high school students that Bin Laden built bridges, hospitals and day care centers in the middle east, and we just blow them up. Maybe we should learn from his example. Nexis logged about two dozen news stories on the incident.
Can you guess which senator is the liberal and which is the conservative?
As a conservative, I personally don't care for Limbaugh. Some of his points are well-taken, but more times then not, he is the Emeril Lagasse of the political world - a lot of "BAM" and "ZAM", but little in the way of substance.
I much prefer intellectual conservatives - primarily William F. Buckley Jr. George Will could be considered in the same vein.
Let us not forget that not only the majority of the television news media outlets are liberal, but the print media is quite slanted to the left too (The NY Times and Washington Post being the two more outspoken examples).
G
What Limbaugh has done is start people down the path. He has the ability to break it down in terms the street can readily understand. Folks listen to him and think to themselves - "yeah, that makes sense..." Sure, he lays the entertainment
shtick on pretty thick.
William F. Buckley on the other hand, can be a bit tough for the "newbies" to grasp
first time out.
The Lott ordeal was overblown like crazy. By the media and the political parties (yes, both parties) involved.
What Murray actualy said was that the poverty stricken world that Bin Laden operates in sees him building bridges and whatnot and we blow them up. As a means to understanding why so many (poor) people put faith is such a bad man. She never said he was a good role model.
Like I said before I am not getting into an argument just stating what I see. I don't see politics of either "side" being the prime influence to media. I see cash being the prime influence. The media, be it print or televised or what have you, make their money from advertisers and the advertisers pay based on how many eyes they think are looking at the material (and the adds). So the news probably biases itself based on what it thinks it can sell. I doubt that politics makes that much of a diference.
I am not looking for "proof" as I am not puting anything on trial here nor trying to prove a point. I never claimed to be a representative of a political party or a spokesperson for a certain veiwpoint and think debates prove nothing other than who has more spunk for a fight. I have no stomach for debates and no skill either so not even trying. That does not mean I am automaticaly "Wrong" or "Stupid" it just means that debating is not something I am interested in. You may think I am wrong and stupid but I think people who think that way about me can shove it. You can "own" me all you want with "proof" and it will not matter. If you were in need I would still jump in and do whatever I could to help you. That is what matters to me, individuals and not party lines.
I have not mentioned yet but I think that Bush put up a good argument for action in Iraq this time. Provided he can bring up the proof. And that proof should be forthcomming to the UN on the 5'th and to us shortly afterward. This is a good thing. If we have just cause then lets do it and do it right. Until now it was just words and that did not mean much.
And what will you all be saying if (and I am stating IF here) the presidential stimulus plans don't pan out the way you think it will? Who will you start blaming? Conservatives are just as guilty at blaming as liberals. You may not think so because you have chosen to follow that way, but conservatives are just a different side to the same coin.
Bush talked a good talk for the most part but lets see what he will do. There are some things that were in his speech that I am greatly unhappy with but that would open a new can of worms that does not need to be opened.