"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 21:52:23 -0600, JimC said:

Those two words -
"liberal media" - are guaranteed to work magic with their constituency.

But of course we know there's no truth whatever in those words, right?

It doesn't matter. What matters is credibility. During the days of the great
evil empire (the Soviet Union, not the USA for you liberals) Pravda was the
official and only newspaper. The title "Pravda" meant truth. How may people
do you think believed what was printed in it? The only reason it sold copies
was people needed something to stuff into their boots to stay warm while
standing in line for a bar of soap, fish head or ill fitting underwear. Look
at the numbers for the traditional "media" - newspapers going out of
business, tv viewership down, etc. The only media that is growing is the
fair and balanced, objective media such as Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. Of
course the brainwashed will scream they're not fair and balanced.
Apparently, to a large number of viewers (and those who wished to be
interviewed) these are the only outlets that provide news that people seem
worth watching and perhaps, believing. Look at the tremedous resources being
poured into Obama's campaign - the free media bias, teachers in schools
duping children and college students, the tremendous social pressures, the
personal attacks, villification, etc and the best Obama can do is maybe be
ahead by a few percentage points. There is even a campaign dubbed "Educating
the Idiots" by the Democrats to get people to vote for Obama. That alone
rips the lid off of the sewer of what it takes to get their man elected.
Bias alone will not sell a bad product to most people. It takes deception,
lies and misrepresentation. Unfortunately in the present case one cannot
return the defective product for a refund. So, in closing, let them be
biased, as biased as possible and as blatant as possible. The bottom line is
money and if they can't make money selling deceptive, biased "news"
reporting perhaps their candidate can push for a bailout. Obama has a lot
more to spend in media advertising, why would the media bite the hand that
feeds it?

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 21:52:23 -0600, JimC said:

Those two words -
"liberal media" - are guaranteed to work magic with their constituency.

But of course we know there's no truth whatever in those words, right?


And, the right-wingnut media doesn't exist at all. Being a bit disingenuous
again I see.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
So I take it you accept the proposition that there is truth in those
words,
but you choose to justify it by pointing at what you regard as others' bad
behavior.


I don't know how you take it. I said that there is no right-wingnut media.
Do you agree or disagree.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 12:31:32 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
.. .
So I take it you accept the proposition that there is truth in those
words,
but you choose to justify it by pointing at what you regard as others' bad
behavior.


I don't know how you take it. I said that there is no right-wingnut media.
Do you agree or disagree.

That doesn't count.
Looks like if Obama wins the election, it'll be Iiffil's fault.
Pretty much how it was the Jews' fault Hitler came to power.
Uh oh, I said Hitler.
If everything works right, this lame-as thread will end.
But things have a way of going wrong.

--Vic

"Dave" wrote in message
...
How could you not know? I just told you.


Know what? Told me what?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
We know that Ifill is objective, fair and balanced because of her
employment
record, right Jon? PBS, NY Times, Washington Post and NBC. What could be
more balanced than that?


Do you believe that one's employment history is the definative, objective
measure of someone's bias or lack of bias?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 12:32:50 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
We know that Ifill is objective, fair and balanced because of her
employment
record, right Jon? PBS, NY Times, Washington Post and NBC. What could be
more balanced than that?


Do you believe that one's employment history is the definative, objective
measure of someone's bias or lack of bias?

Do you think MoveOn.org is gonna hire Rush Limbaugh to write for its web
site?

They couldn't afford it.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 12:32:50 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
We know that Ifill is objective, fair and balanced because of her
employment
record, right Jon? PBS, NY Times, Washington Post and NBC. What could be
more balanced than that?


Do you believe that one's employment history is the definative, objective
measure of someone's bias or lack of bias?

Do you think MoveOn.org is gonna hire Rush Limbaugh to write for its web
site?


I don't know. Is MoveOn.org media or is Limbaugh?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On 2 Oct 2008 14:55:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 12:32:50 -0700, "Capt. JG" said:

"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
We know that Ifill is objective, fair and balanced because of her
employment
record, right Jon? PBS, NY Times, Washington Post and NBC. What could be
more balanced than that?


Do you believe that one's employment history is the definative, objective
measure of someone's bias or lack of bias?

Do you think MoveOn.org is gonna hire Rush Limbaugh to write for its web
site?

They did hire him, but he couldn't pass the urine test.

On 2 Oct 2008 12:43:05 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 07:52:34 -0700, "Capt. JG" said:

Those two words -
"liberal media" - are guaranteed to work magic with their constituency.

But of course we know there's no truth whatever in those words, right?


And, the right-wingnut media doesn't exist at all. Being a bit disingenuous
again I see.

We know that Ifill is objective, fair and balanced because of her employment
record, right Jon? PBS, NY Times, Washington Post and NBC. What could be
more balanced than that?

Oh, please! The McCain campaign knew all about this in advance. They
WANTED this person to be the moderator so they could then use it as an
excuse when Palin predictably embarrasses herself and her party in the
debate. I expect to hear a lot of Boo-hoo-hoo from McCain supporters
about how unfair the debate was.