On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:23:28 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
I really didn't think I was that oblique in my presentation. I
certainly don't have a "clew" as to what you're attempting to rebut.
The point here is that a consipcuously left-leaning news organization,
Russia Today, is matter-of-factly stating that the American news media
has a tangible left-wing bias for the most part. And RT doesn't have
a dog in the fight, so to speak. IOW, they're fairly detached
observers of the american political conversation in this respect.
Consequently, it robs the left-leaning pundits of one of their
favorite informal fallacies, the circumstantial ad hominem, in
defending the liberal media.


Let me get this straight... you're a right-wing nutcase citing a Russian
source that considers the possibility that Obama might not be perfect. Yet,
there I'm doubtful that there's a single person on this newsgroup who
believe Obama should not be criticized if he deserves it. Even MSNBC
criticizes him multiple times a week.

Do you consider Rush or O'Really liberal? How about Lew Dobbs? I won't even
mention the moron Glen Beck.

Rudimentarily speaking, since it appears that I will be unable to
render it sensibly otherwise, I have offered an observation that a
Left-leaning news organization, specifically RT, recognizes the
liberal bent of the American news media. This was the only nuance I
was offering, other than the fact that left-leaning politico's in this
country would have a difficult time applying the logical fallacy of
the circumstantial ad hominem to RT to refute RT's perspective of the
American media considering RT's own ostensible, poltical persuasion.
Make sense?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote in message
...
Rudimentarily speaking, since it appears that I will be unable to
render it sensibly otherwise, I have offered an observation that a
Left-leaning news organization, specifically RT, recognizes the
liberal bent of the American news media. This was the only nuance I
was offering, other than the fact that left-leaning politico's in this
country would have a difficult time applying the logical fallacy of
the circumstantial ad hominem to RT to refute RT's perspective of the
American media considering RT's own ostensible, poltical persuasion.
Make sense?


So, they don't count Rush, O'Really, Beck, Dobbs as part of the mainstream
media? Well, I'm not sure if I agree or not.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:26:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
Rudimentarily speaking, since it appears that I will be unable to
render it sensibly otherwise, I have offered an observation that a
Left-leaning news organization, specifically RT, recognizes the
liberal bent of the American news media. This was the only nuance I
was offering, other than the fact that left-leaning politico's in this
country would have a difficult time applying the logical fallacy of
the circumstantial ad hominem to RT to refute RT's perspective of the
American media considering RT's own ostensible, poltical persuasion.
Make sense?


So, they don't count Rush, O'Really, Beck, Dobbs as part of the mainstream
media? Well, I'm not sure if I agree or not.

The persons you have listed are noted, self-professed politco's and
commentators. O'Rielly may take umbrage with being referred to as a
politico, as well as Dobbs. But to classify these persons as pure
journalists is something I suspect they would even find amusing.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:36:51 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:26:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
Rudimentarily speaking, since it appears that I will be unable to
render it sensibly otherwise, I have offered an observation that a
Left-leaning news organization, specifically RT, recognizes the
liberal bent of the American news media. This was the only nuance I
was offering, other than the fact that left-leaning politico's in this
country would have a difficult time applying the logical fallacy of
the circumstantial ad hominem to RT to refute RT's perspective of the
American media considering RT's own ostensible, poltical persuasion.
Make sense?


So, they don't count Rush, O'Really, Beck, Dobbs as part of the mainstream
media? Well, I'm not sure if I agree or not.

The persons you have listed are noted, self-professed politco's and
commentators. O'Rielly may take umbrage with being referred to as a
politico, as well as Dobbs. But to classify these persons as pure
journalists is something I suspect they would even find amusing.

To add to this, I don't think it can be reasonably inferred from the
interview that the discussion of liberal bias in the MSM did not
tacitly consider the fact that there are more conservative elements of
the MSM. It's understood that the more conservative elements are not
representative of the MSM as a whole.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote in message
...
So, they don't count Rush, O'Really, Beck, Dobbs as part of the mainstream
media? Well, I'm not sure if I agree or not.

The persons you have listed are noted, self-professed politco's and
commentators. O'Rielly may take umbrage with being referred to as a
politico, as well as Dobbs. But to classify these persons as pure
journalists is something I suspect they would even find amusing.


Please show me where I referred to any of them as "journalists." I referred
to them as part of the media. There's a huge difference, which I'm hopeful
you can grok in fullness.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
The persons you have listed are noted, self-professed politco's and
commentators. O'Rielly may take umbrage with being referred to as a
politico, as well as Dobbs. But to classify these persons as pure
journalists is something I suspect they would even find amusing.

To add to this, I don't think it can be reasonably inferred from the
interview that the discussion of liberal bias in the MSM did not
tacitly consider the fact that there are more conservative elements of
the MSM. It's understood that the more conservative elements are not
representative of the MSM as a whole.


MSM? Do you mean MSNBC? If so, I certainly agree that conservative elements
are not representative of that organization. It is certainly true, as well,
that Fox is pretty much a right-wing biased organization, and they pushing
an agenda of mis-information and fear. MSNBC isn't pushing a similar agenda,
although, as I said, they lean left.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:59:14 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
The persons you have listed are noted, self-professed politco's and
commentators. O'Rielly may take umbrage with being referred to as a
politico, as well as Dobbs. But to classify these persons as pure
journalists is something I suspect they would even find amusing.

To add to this, I don't think it can be reasonably inferred from the
interview that the discussion of liberal bias in the MSM did not
tacitly consider the fact that there are more conservative elements of
the MSM. It's understood that the more conservative elements are not
representative of the MSM as a whole.


MSM? Do you mean MSNBC? If so, I certainly agree that conservative elements
are not representative of that organization. It is certainly true, as well,
that Fox is pretty much a right-wing biased organization, and they pushing
an agenda of mis-information and fear. MSNBC isn't pushing a similar agenda,
although, as I said, they lean left.

MSM is a common acronym for Mainstream Media.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/MSM

"The mainstream media is a collective journalistic entity which
provides news and information to a large audience. This is in contrast
with the alternative media, which reaches a much smaller and often
more specific audience. You may hear the mainstream media referred to
as the “mass media,” referencing the idea that it reaches the masses,
and it is sometimes seen written as MSM. Most people around the world
get the bulk of their news through the mainstream media."
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-...ream-media.htm

RT was referring to the media in the journalistic sense.

You really should move beyond Heinlein, JPS.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote in message
...
MSM? Do you mean MSNBC? If so, I certainly agree that conservative
elements
are not representative of that organization. It is certainly true, as
well,
that Fox is pretty much a right-wing biased organization, and they pushing
an agenda of mis-information and fear. MSNBC isn't pushing a similar
agenda,
although, as I said, they lean left.

MSM is a common acronym for Mainstream Media.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/MSM

"The mainstream media is a collective journalistic entity which
provides news and information to a large audience. This is in contrast
with the alternative media, which reaches a much smaller and often
more specific audience. You may hear the mainstream media referred to
as the "mass media," referencing the idea that it reaches the masses,
and it is sometimes seen written as MSM. Most people around the world
get the bulk of their news through the mainstream media."
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-...ream-media.htm

RT was referring to the media in the journalistic sense.



You really should move beyond Heinlein, JPS.

So, basically, you have nothing of value to say, and have decided on the one
hand that the MSM is left-leaning, then claim that the Fox empty-heads
aren't journalists, then they are.

Who's JPS?

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:59:28 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
MSM? Do you mean MSNBC? If so, I certainly agree that conservative
elements
are not representative of that organization. It is certainly true, as
well,
that Fox is pretty much a right-wing biased organization, and they pushing
an agenda of mis-information and fear. MSNBC isn't pushing a similar
agenda,
although, as I said, they lean left.

MSM is a common acronym for Mainstream Media.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/MSM

"The mainstream media is a collective journalistic entity which
provides news and information to a large audience. This is in contrast
with the alternative media, which reaches a much smaller and often
more specific audience. You may hear the mainstream media referred to
as the "mass media," referencing the idea that it reaches the masses,
and it is sometimes seen written as MSM. Most people around the world
get the bulk of their news through the mainstream media."
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-...ream-media.htm

RT was referring to the media in the journalistic sense.



You really should move beyond Heinlein, JPS.

So, basically, you have nothing of value to say, and have decided on the one
hand that the MSM is left-leaning, then claim that the Fox empty-heads
aren't journalists, then they are.

Who is able to argue with your desultory conclusions, and who would
want to?

Enjoy

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote in message
...

Who is able to argue with your desultory conclusions, and who would
want to?

Enjoy



You, apparently. You can't seem to support your various claims, and when the
fallacies are pointed out, you run away.

--
Nom=de=Plume