On 3/19/13 5:38 PM, Urin Asshole wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 15:31:05 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 3/19/2013 2:22 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:28:44 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

Well, you are free to choose whatever messenger you prefer .....
there's at least 8 other ones, including Fox News, that reported the
results of the same Pew Study.


This is an unscientific study but my observations parallel what Pew
says. My TV is on the news all day and CNN seems to be the one that
does more reporting than commenting.


I agree...

Then why did you say that the findings were bull because they were
reported on Huff Post, along with about 200 other places?

cause he's stupid?


PsychoSnotty defines stupid.

In article ,
says...

"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message
...

On 3/19/2013 8:50 AM, Eisboch wrote:


I watched the discussion on MSNBC as well. In fact they are
repeating
it now. But again, it supports the Pew study .... lots of
commentary
and expressions of opinions by all, including Scarborough. As
opinions
and commentary goes, I thought it was fairly well presented and
balanced by all of the participants, from those who just claimed
"lies,
lies, lies" to a reasonable explanation .... right or wrong ....
of
what was going on in Bush's head at the time.




So, you had a few libs doing the loogie and suggesting the most
sinister
view of what Bush was thinking and the republicans (surprised they
allowed them on MSNBC) were dismissing it for what it was? Ok.. makes
sense

-------------------------------------------

I think "Morning Joe" is the only show on MSNBC that is hosted by a
Republican (Joe Scarborough) . The rest the commentary shows are
all hosted by liberal Democrats. They have regular conservative
"guests" or political commentators like Michael Steele, but they are
usually used to emphasize and contrast the liberal host's agenda. I
like Michael Steele. He's smart, has an open mind and usually holds
his own against the liberal attacks.

Joe Scarborough is MSNBC's pet Republican just like David Brooks is the
NY Time's pet conservative. Neither Scarborough or Brooks are well
thought of on the right. The left keeps them around as props.

They used to have Pat Buchanan but he was an obvious racist. He was
often funny, but he went too far some times and it finally caught up
to him and he was canned.

In article ,
says...

"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message
...

On 3/19/2013 7:40 AM, Eisboch wrote:
A report released Monday by the Pew Research Center on media
coverage
over the past 5 years indicates that MSNBC (with the lowest overall
budget) relies 85 percent on "opinions" by their commentators and
15
percent on actual reporting of news events.

According to the study Fox News spends 55 percent of their air time
on
commentary opinions and 45 percent on reporting of actual news.

CNN was rated as being the only cable network that spent more time
reporting the news than opinion commentary.

What a surprise.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/msnbc-opinion-cable-news_n_2900160.html


Well, it's fine and dandy but the Huffington Hoax is hardly the source
I
would go to for objective views about news coverage...

-----------------------------------

The study was done by the Pew Research Center, not by Huffington .

So shooting the messenger is not appropriate? My response to you is why
do you watch and promote NBC over other networks that report more news?

"BAR" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message
...

On 3/19/2013 7:40 AM, Eisboch wrote:
A report released Monday by the Pew Research Center on media
coverage
over the past 5 years indicates that MSNBC (with the lowest
overall
budget) relies 85 percent on "opinions" by their commentators and
15
percent on actual reporting of news events.

According to the study Fox News spends 55 percent of their air
time
on
commentary opinions and 45 percent on reporting of actual news.

CNN was rated as being the only cable network that spent more time
reporting the news than opinion commentary.

What a surprise.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/msnbc-opinion-cable-news_n_2900160.html


Well, it's fine and dandy but the Huffington Hoax is hardly the
source
I
would go to for objective views about news coverage...

-----------------------------------

The study was done by the Pew Research Center, not by Huffington .



So shooting the messenger is not appropriate? My response to you is
why
do you watch and promote NBC over other networks that report more
news?

---------------------------------------------

The post was simply a comment on what the Pew Study report found. It
was not a personal endorsement of MSNBC.

I watch MSNBC to get the liberal's slant on politics and current
events. I watch CNN when I've had enough of watching MSNBC which is
usually by the time Al Sharpton has finished his show's introduction.
I used to suffer through Rachel Maddow's show but she's gone too far
over the line with MSNBC's leftist slant and she has become grating
for me to listen to. I don't drink, so I don't need her mixology
lessons either.

I don't think I've ever "promoted" MSNBC. To the contrary, I think
I've complained more or commented negatively about their programming.
The only show that I think is really worth viewing is "Morning Joe"
because Scarborough at least attempts to keep the discussions
balanced and will challenge those who start getting too far left in
their opinions or comments. To his credit, he will also take some of
the ultra-right wing nuts to task as well.

Lastly, I get a kick out of watching Mika Brzezinski getting
exasperated with some of Scarborough's comments.

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 23:07:28 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

I don't think I've ever "promoted" MSNBC. To the contrary, I think
I've complained more or commented negatively about their programming.
The only show that I think is really worth viewing is "Morning Joe"
because Scarborough at least attempts to keep the discussions
balanced and will challenge those who start getting too far left in
their opinions or comments. To his credit, he will also take some of
the ultra-right wing nuts to task as well.

Lastly, I get a kick out of watching Mika Brzezinski getting
exasperated with some of Scarborough's comments.

====

And therein lies the problem. In today's highly polarized political
climate, if you're not for them, then you must be against them. Anyone
standing in he middle of the road with a fair and balanced position
will be struck by oncoming traffic from one side or the other.
Mostly I blame the media for bringing us to this sorry state of
affairs, but as thinking adults we should all be trying to end the
nonsense.

On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 00:05:07 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 23:07:28 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

I don't think I've ever "promoted" MSNBC. To the contrary, I think
I've complained more or commented negatively about their programming.
The only show that I think is really worth viewing is "Morning Joe"
because Scarborough at least attempts to keep the discussions
balanced and will challenge those who start getting too far left in
their opinions or comments. To his credit, he will also take some of
the ultra-right wing nuts to task as well.

Lastly, I get a kick out of watching Mika Brzezinski getting
exasperated with some of Scarborough's comments.

====

And therein lies the problem. In today's highly polarized political
climate, if you're not for them, then you must be against them. Anyone
standing in he middle of the road with a fair and balanced position
will be struck by oncoming traffic from one side or the other.
Mostly I blame the media for bringing us to this sorry state of
affairs, but as thinking adults we should all be trying to end the
nonsense.

How? I mean that's right, but how? Not that it's particularly
balanced, but say it is for a minute. How do you not promote your TV
show or talk radio without being inflamitory? Wait, I know...
education! Then, when you spout off some ****, it's a deliberate lie
and nobody with a decent education, specifically one that teaches
critical thinking will be fooled.

On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:54:24 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

====

And therein lies the problem. In today's highly polarized political
climate, if you're not for them, then you must be against them. Anyone
standing in he middle of the road with a fair and balanced position
will be struck by oncoming traffic from one side or the other.
Mostly I blame the media for bringing us to this sorry state of
affairs, but as thinking adults we should all be trying to end the
nonsense.

How? I mean that's right, but how?

====

It will have to come from good leadership and a groundswell of public
opnion. Help spread the word; support moderate candidates; write
letters to intemperate media outlets and their commercial sponsors -
in other words good old fashioned grass roots political activism.

In article ,
says...

"BAR" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message
...

On 3/19/2013 7:40 AM, Eisboch wrote:
A report released Monday by the Pew Research Center on media
coverage
over the past 5 years indicates that MSNBC (with the lowest
overall
budget) relies 85 percent on "opinions" by their commentators and
15
percent on actual reporting of news events.

According to the study Fox News spends 55 percent of their air
time
on
commentary opinions and 45 percent on reporting of actual news.

CNN was rated as being the only cable network that spent more time
reporting the news than opinion commentary.

What a surprise.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/msnbc-opinion-cable-news_n_2900160.html


Well, it's fine and dandy but the Huffington Hoax is hardly the
source
I
would go to for objective views about news coverage...

-----------------------------------

The study was done by the Pew Research Center, not by Huffington .



So shooting the messenger is not appropriate? My response to you is
why
do you watch and promote NBC over other networks that report more
news?

---------------------------------------------

The post was simply a comment on what the Pew Study report found. It
was not a personal endorsement of MSNBC.

I watch MSNBC to get the liberal's slant on politics and current
events. I watch CNN when I've had enough of watching MSNBC which is
usually by the time Al Sharpton has finished his show's introduction.
I used to suffer through Rachel Maddow's show but she's gone too far
over the line with MSNBC's leftist slant and she has become grating
for me to listen to. I don't drink, so I don't need her mixology
lessons either.

I don't think I've ever "promoted" MSNBC. To the contrary, I think
I've complained more or commented negatively about their programming.
The only show that I think is really worth viewing is "Morning Joe"
because Scarborough at least attempts to keep the discussions
balanced and will challenge those who start getting too far left in
their opinions or comments. To his credit, he will also take some of
the ultra-right wing nuts to task as well.

Lastly, I get a kick out of watching Mika Brzezinski getting
exasperated with some of Scarborough's comments.

You just like to see her cheast heave!

"BAR" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...


Lastly, I get a kick out of watching Mika Brzezinski getting
exasperated with some of Scarborough's comments.

You just like to see her cheast heave!

----------------------------------------

Well, that too!