|
OT--For those who think Fox News is biased...
Study Shows U.S. Election Coverage Harder on Bush
Mar 14, 10:01 AM (ET) By Claudia Parsons NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. media coverage of last year's election was three times more likely to be negative toward President Bush than Democratic challenger John Kerry, according to a study released Monday. The annual report by a press watchdog that is affiliated with Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism said that 36 percent of stories about Bush were negative compared to 12 percent about Kerry, a Massachusetts senator. Only 20 percent were positive toward Bush compared to 30 percent of stories about Kerry that were positive, according to the report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. The study looked at 16 newspapers of varying size across the country, four nightly newscasts, three network morning news shows, nine cable programs and nine Web sites through the course of 2004. Examining the public perception that coverage of the war in Iraq was decidedly negative, it found evidence did not support that conclusion. The majority of stories had no decided tone, 25 percent were negative and 20 percent were positive, it said. The three network nightly newscasts and public broadcaster PBS tended to be more negative than positive, while Fox News was twice as likely to be positive as negative. Looking at public perceptions of the media, the report showed that more people thought the media was unfair to both Kerry and Bush than to the candidates four years earlier, but fewer people thought news organizations had too much influence on the outcome of the election. "It may be that the expectations of the press have sunk enough that they will not sink much further. People are not dismayed by disappointments in the press. They expect them," the authors of the report said. The study noted a huge rise in audiences for Internet news, particularly for bloggers whose readers jumped by 58 percent in six months to 32 million people. Despite the growing importance of the Web, the report said investment was not keeping pace and some 62 percent of Internet professionals reported cutbacks in the newsroom in the last three years, even more than the 37 percent of print, radio and TV journalists who cited cutbacks in their newsrooms. "For all that the number of outlets has grown, the number of people engaged in collecting original information has not," the report said, noting that much of the investment was directed at repackaging and presenting information rather than gathering news. ------------------------------------------------------ Three to one more negative against a Republican? Hell, that's probably an improvement from prior years. |
NOYB wrote:
Study Shows U.S. Election Coverage Harder on Bush Mar 14, 10:01 AM (ET) By Claudia Parsons NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. media coverage of last year's election was three times more likely to be negative toward President Bush than Democratic challenger John Kerry, according to a study released Monday. I find that rather hard to believe, when Bush's smear campaigns against Kerry were reported as straight news and Kerry's explanations reported as "campaign publicity." How much footage of Bush's dismal performances in the debates was carried on news channels? Here is a case of the right wing screaming about "liberal bias" because the public media is not 100% neo-con controlled. DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message .. . Here is a case of the right wing screaming about "liberal bias" The Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism is right wing? I guess demonizing the source is the only tactic available when the facts don't support your argument, eh Doug? |
Here is a case of the right wing screaming about "liberal bias"
NOYB wrote: The Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism is right wing? I'd have to know where the grant came from for this particular little nugget before saying either way. But their conclusion is so obviously bogus that it's hardly "unbiased." The manner in which their premise is stated is itself biased... but go ahead, pretend it's legit if it makes you feel better. I guess demonizing the source is the only tactic available when the facts don't support your argument, eh Doug? You just think so because you're looking at the world through demon colored glasses. BTW where are all your facts & figures on Bush's educational programs? Environmental studies? Health care initiatives? Jobs growth? Border security? Port & airline security too, and throw in foreign policy successes... If you take away the Iraq election, which was a good step but so far not much follow-up, and the *potential* withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon and the undercutting of Hamas & Hezbollah thereby, you can't really point to a single thing in four long years that Bush has done right. But hey, that's just so negative, y'know? DSK |
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:15:07 -0500, DSK wrote:
NOYB wrote: Study Shows U.S. Election Coverage Harder on Bush Mar 14, 10:01 AM (ET) By Claudia Parsons NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. media coverage of last year's election was three times more likely to be negative toward President Bush than Democratic challenger John Kerry, according to a study released Monday. I find that rather hard to believe, when Bush's smear campaigns against Kerry were reported as straight news and Kerry's explanations reported as "campaign publicity." How much footage of Bush's dismal performances in the debates was carried on news channels? Here is a case of the right wing screaming about "liberal bias" because the public media is not 100% neo-con controlled. DSK How much play did Bush's National Guard record get in the "straight news" versus the river boat "heroics" of John Kerry as presented by the Swift Boat Veterans? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:36:12 -0500, DSK wrote:
Here is a case of the right wing screaming about "liberal bias" NOYB wrote: The Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism is right wing? I'd have to know where the grant came from for this particular little nugget before saying either way. But their conclusion is so obviously bogus that it's hardly "unbiased." The manner in which their premise is stated is itself biased... but go ahead, pretend it's legit if it makes you feel better. I guess demonizing the source is the only tactic available when the facts don't support your argument, eh Doug? You just think so because you're looking at the world through demon colored glasses. BTW where are all your facts & figures on Bush's educational programs? Environmental studies? Health care initiatives? Jobs growth? Border security? Port & airline security too, and throw in foreign policy successes... If you take away the Iraq election, which was a good step but so far not much follow-up, and the *potential* withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon and the undercutting of Hamas & Hezbollah thereby, you can't really point to a single thing in four long years that Bush has done right. But hey, that's just so negative, y'know? DSK Truth's a bitch, isn't it Doug? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"DSK" wrote in message . .. Here is a case of the right wing screaming about "liberal bias" NOYB wrote: The Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism is right wing? I'd have to know where the grant came from for this particular little nugget before saying either way. But their conclusion is so obviously bogus that it's hardly "unbiased." The manner in which their premise is stated is itself biased... but go ahead, pretend it's legit if it makes you feel better. I guess demonizing the source is the only tactic available when the facts don't support your argument, eh Doug? You just think so because you're looking at the world through demon colored glasses. BTW where are all your facts & figures on Bush's educational programs? Environmental studies? Health care initiatives? Jobs growth? Border security? Port & airline security too, and throw in foreign policy successes... If you take away the Iraq election, which was a good step but so far not much follow-up, and the *potential* withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon and the undercutting of Hamas & Hezbollah thereby, you can't really point to a single thing in four long years that Bush has done right. That's like saying "if you discount the New Deal programs, and our victories over the Germans and Japanese in WWII, you can't really point to a single thing in 12 long years that FDR did right." Give the man credit. His Middle East policies are working. |
If you take away the Iraq election, which was a good step but so far not
much follow-up, and the *potential* withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon and the undercutting of Hamas & Hezbollah thereby, you can't really point to a single thing in four long years that Bush has done right. NOYB wrote: That's like saying "if you discount the New Deal programs, and our victories over the Germans and Japanese in WWII, you can't really point to a single thing in 12 long years that FDR did right." Bull****. FDR did a huge number of things right, from his radio fireside chats on up to chosing John Nance Garner, then Truman, as his Vice Presidents. Give the man credit. His Middle East policies are working. Whose? Afghanistand hasn't worked out too badly, but then that one was done by the pros. Not too big a success story follow-up once it was handed off to the Bush/Cheney team. Iraq... with the exception of the election, which is only about year later than originally planned... has been a disaster. Lebanon *might* work out but then Bush hasn't done a whole lot there he can take credit for other than standing on the sidelines smiling. And it hasn't happened yet. I take your above statement as an admission that there isn't anything else the Bush/Cheney team can point to as a success. DSK |
"JimH" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... Study Shows U.S. Election Coverage Harder on Bush Mar 14, 10:01 AM (ET) By Claudia Parsons NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. media coverage of last year's election was three times more likely to be negative toward President Bush than Democratic challenger John Kerry, according to a study released Monday. The annual report by a press watchdog that is affiliated with Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism said that 36 percent of stories about Bush were negative compared to 12 percent about Kerry, a Massachusetts senator. Only 20 percent were positive toward Bush compared to 30 percent of stories about Kerry that were positive, according to the report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. The study looked at 16 newspapers of varying size across the country, four nightly newscasts, three network morning news shows, nine cable programs and nine Web sites through the course of 2004. Examining the public perception that coverage of the war in Iraq was decidedly negative, it found evidence did not support that conclusion. The majority of stories had no decided tone, 25 percent were negative and 20 percent were positive, it said. The three network nightly newscasts and public broadcaster PBS tended to be more negative than positive, while Fox News was twice as likely to be positive as negative. Looking at public perceptions of the media, the report showed that more people thought the media was unfair to both Kerry and Bush than to the candidates four years earlier, but fewer people thought news organizations had too much influence on the outcome of the election. "It may be that the expectations of the press have sunk enough that they will not sink much further. People are not dismayed by disappointments in the press. They expect them," the authors of the report said. The study noted a huge rise in audiences for Internet news, particularly for bloggers whose readers jumped by 58 percent in six months to 32 million people. Despite the growing importance of the Web, the report said investment was not keeping pace and some 62 percent of Internet professionals reported cutbacks in the newsroom in the last three years, even more than the 37 percent of print, radio and TV journalists who cited cutbacks in their newsrooms. "For all that the number of outlets has grown, the number of people engaged in collecting original information has not," the report said, noting that much of the investment was directed at repackaging and presenting information rather than gathering news. ------------------------------------------------------ Three to one more negative against a Republican? Hell, that's probably an improvement from prior years. Nice article. An article by an AP television writer reported Fox as more biased than CNN and CNBC because they reported more positive news than negative news. Go figure. ======================================== " NEW YORK -- A study of news coverage of the war in Iraq fails to support a conclusion that events were portrayed either negatively or positively most of the time. The Project for Excellence in Journalism That's the same group (from Columbia University) which reached the conclusion that the media coverage was harder on Bush! |
"DSK" wrote in message . .. If you take away the Iraq election, which was a good step but so far not much follow-up, and the *potential* withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon and the undercutting of Hamas & Hezbollah thereby, you can't really point to a single thing in four long years that Bush has done right. NOYB wrote: That's like saying "if you discount the New Deal programs, and our victories over the Germans and Japanese in WWII, you can't really point to a single thing in 12 long years that FDR did right." Bull****. FDR did a huge number of things right, from his radio fireside chats on up to chosing John Nance Garner, then Truman, as his Vice Presidents. Give the man credit. His Middle East policies are working. Whose? Afghanistand hasn't worked out too badly, but then that one was done by the pros. Not too big a success story follow-up once it was handed off to the Bush/Cheney team. Hahahaha. That's a funny one! How many US military personnel were overtly operating in Afghanistan while Clinton was President? How many sorties did our fighters fly over Afghanistan while Clinton was president? Iraq... with the exception of the election, which is only about year later than originally planned... has been a disaster. Nothing like downplaying Iraq's first Democratic election ever! Lebanon *might* work out but then Bush hasn't done a whole lot there he can take credit for other than standing on the sidelines smiling. He might be standing on the sidelines smiling...but there's a reason for it. He has 160,000 troops on Syria's eastern border, and he's demonstrated the willingness to use them. And it hasn't happened yet. I take your above statement as an admission that there isn't anything else the Bush/Cheney team can point to as a success. How about 3 million new jobs created in the last 21 months? How about cushioning the landing of a declining economy when he took office, thus making our last recession one of our mildest and shortest-lasting recessions in history (despite the 9/11 attack)? How about the fact that there hasn't been another terrorist attack on US soil for 3 1/2 years despite at least a dozen promises from bin Laden and al Zawahiri that the next one would be coming any day? How about the fact that he's done what very few Presidents have ever achieved: helped his own party *gain* seats at the mid-term and end-of-first-term elections? |
If you take away the Iraq election, which was a good step but so far not
much follow-up, and the *potential* withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon and the undercutting of Hamas & Hezbollah thereby, you can't really point to a single thing in four long years that Bush has done right. Afghanistand hasn't worked out too badly, but then that one was done by the pros. Not too big a success story follow-up once it was handed off to the Bush/Cheney team. NOYB wrote: Hahahaha. That's a funny one! How many US military personnel were overtly operating in Afghanistan while Clinton was President? ??? ... How many sorties did our fighters fly over Afghanistan while Clinton was president? ??? There was plenty of covert operation going on in Afghanistan, which laid the ground work for our support of the Northern Alliance and the eventual overthrow of the Taliban. Did you assume that by "the pros" I meant the Clinton Administration? Why, do you think they did *that* much better a job of running the country? I meant (of course) the Pentagon. The Bush Administration looney-tunes like Feigth & Bolton had no part in planning the Afghanistan invasion and occupation... it's notable that once they got involved, things went downhill... and we *still* haven't found Bin Laden... Iraq... with the exception of the election, which is only about year later than originally planned... has been a disaster. Nothing like downplaying Iraq's first Democratic election ever! 1- it was not Iraq's FIRST election, I guess there's no substitute for ignorance of history when trying to judge political accomplishments 2- I am not downplaying it, I am putting the election in an accurate context... as part of an ongoing process Lebanon *might* work out but then Bush hasn't done a whole lot there he can take credit for other than standing on the sidelines smiling. He might be standing on the sidelines smiling...but there's a reason for it. He has 160,000 troops on Syria's eastern border, and he's demonstrated the willingness to use them. And if they leave Iraq, what's going to happen there? And it hasn't happened yet. I take your above statement as an admission that there isn't anything else the Bush/Cheney team can point to as a success. How about 3 million new jobs created in the last 21 months? Where do you get this? As of last August, the "new jobs" total was well under 2 million, the net was still a loss of over a million... the economy is ramping up (FINALLY!) but that doesn't change 3+ years of backsliding & stagnation... and of course blatant lies about it... .... How about cushioning the landing of a declining economy when he took office, thus making our last recession one of our mildest and shortest-lasting recessions in history (despite the 9/11 attack)? Huh? You can 3+ years "mild & short" Fact, NOBBY, stick with the facts. How about the fact that there hasn't been another terrorist attack on US soil for 3 1/2 years despite at least a dozen promises from bin Laden and al Zawahiri that the next one would be coming any day? How about all the bogus alerts? How about the FACT that the airlines themselves say that security has not significantly improved? How about the FACT that unmonitored border crossings are at an all-time high? How about the statements from the retiring head of Health & Human Services that our food supply is almost completely unprotected? How about the Coast Guard's pleas for more port security... ignored at every turn? Personally I'd credit blind luck & stupidity on the part of the terrorists (you have to be a little thick in the head, and have an unrealistic world view, to buy into their line of malarkey) more than any action by the Bush Administration. How about the fact that he's done what very few Presidents have ever achieved: helped his own party *gain* seats at the mid-term and end-of-first-term elections? What has that done for America? Besides, Bush & Cheney have spent hundreds of millions of dollars, and continue to spend hundreds of millions, to scream their lies into the ear of every American who'll sit still for it. I'm not surprised they've gained popular support... but that doesn't change the facts on the ground, and I believe that sooner or later people will wake up to the facts. Everything comes & goes in cycles, and the harder Bush & Cheney's team of whackos & hired shills (BTW do they pay you, NOBBY?) push, the sooner they'll fall, from their own momentum. Maybe some real conservatives will have a chance to come to the fore. DSK |
Many of those who believe Faux News is biased also labor under the
impression that water is wet. |
"WaIIy" wrote in message ... On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:25:11 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: "DSK" wrote in message ... Here is a case of the right wing screaming about "liberal bias" The Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism is right wing? I guess demonizing the source is the only tactic available when the facts don't support your argument, eh Doug? Considering the source of the article, I can only guess at the real truth. I was thinking the same thing. |
wrote in message oups.com... Many of those who believe Faux News is biased also labor under the impression that water is wet. Did anybody watch Boston Legal the other night? A high-schooler was suing his school's principal for putting special "news filters" on the TV's. The only news station that the principal chose to filter out was "the one that calls itself fair and balanced". The judge found in favor of the kid, and forced the principal to remove the filters. The funny parts were the arguments made by James Spader: "But you didn't find it a problem that a certain network published forged national guard documents"? He goes on to successfully make the argument that news has become nothing more than a form of entertainment used by the networks to make money...and should be protected by the First Amendment. |
wrote in message oups.com... Many of those who believe Faux News is biased also labor under the impression that water is wet. Did anybody watch Boston Legal the other night? A high-schooler was suing his school's principal for putting special "news filters" on the TV's. The only news station that the principal chose to filter out was "the one that calls itself fair and balanced". The judge found in favor of the kid, and forced the principal to remove the filters. The funny parts were the arguments made by James Spader: "But you didn't find it a problem that a certain network published forged national guard documents"? He goes on to successfully make the argument that news has become nothing more than a form of entertainment used by the networks to make money...and should be protected by the First Amendment. |
NOYB wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... Many of those who believe Faux News is biased also labor under the impression that water is wet. Did anybody watch Boston Legal the other night? A high-schooler was suing his school's principal for putting special "news filters" on the TV's. The only news station that the principal chose to filter out was "the one that calls itself fair and balanced". The judge found in favor of the kid, and forced the principal to remove the filters. The funny parts were the arguments made by James Spader: "But you didn't find it a problem that a certain network published forged national guard documents"? He goes on to successfully make the argument that news has become nothing more than a form of entertainment used by the networks to make money...and should be protected by the First Amendment. news has become nothing more than a form of entertainment used by the networks to make money...and should be protected by the First Amendment. Sadly true -- in all cases |
Many of those who believe Faux News is biased also labor under the
impression that water is wet. NOYB wrote: He goes on to successfully make the argument that news has become nothing more than a form of entertainment used by the networks to make money...and should be protected by the First Amendment. That's funny, many years ago Rush Limbaugh defended himself and his habit of lying egregiously on his program by saying it was "entertainment" and therefor he had no obligation to be accurate... DSK |
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... wrote in message oups.com... Many of those who believe Faux News is biased also labor under the impression that water is wet. Did anybody watch Boston Legal the other night? A high-schooler was suing his school's principal for putting special "news filters" on the TV's. The only news station that the principal chose to filter out was "the one that calls itself fair and balanced". The judge found in favor of the kid, and forced the principal to remove the filters. The funny parts were the arguments made by James Spader: "But you didn't find it a problem that a certain network published forged national guard documents"? He goes on to successfully make the argument that news has become nothing more than a form of entertainment used by the networks to make money...and should be protected by the First Amendment. If you haven't watched the show, you need to. It takes a comical look at a number of politically charged issues. Here's an exchange between Candace Bergen and William Shattner: LEWISTON (Bergen) The problem is the basis of the case, if there is one, would lie in The Bill of Rights, which Denny, of course, thinks never should have been passed. CRANE (Shattner) We're one Supreme Court appointment away from overturning them. SCHMIDT The Bill of Rights. CRANE Damn right. Red States rule. |
"DSK" wrote in message .. . Many of those who believe Faux News is biased also labor under the impression that water is wet. NOYB wrote: He goes on to successfully make the argument that news has become nothing more than a form of entertainment used by the networks to make money...and should be protected by the First Amendment. That's funny, many years ago Rush Limbaugh defended himself and his habit of lying egregiously on his program by saying it was "entertainment" and therefor he had no obligation to be accurate... Here's the Boston Legal exchange on this issue: JUDGE GREENBLATT Mr. Shore. This is a school. Is it wise to expose students to programs which send the message -- you're anti-American if you question the government? SHORE I'm not sure Fox sends that message Your Honor, but before we convict them as the network of conservative values, or any values for that matter, these are the folks who brought you "Joe Millionaire," and "Who's Your Daddy?" JUDGE GREENBLATT That's the entertainment division, I'm talking about the news. SHORE (building steam) And I'm telling you it's all the same. This isn't about political content. This is a corporation looking to make money. Fox News began as alternative news programming to grab a market share, they saw ratings and profit in a conservative demographic, and they've been waving the flag ever since. And so what? News today, all of it, is infotainment. Last February, a deadly toxic known as Ricin was found in the mailroom of the Senate Majority leader, potential terrorism. CNN Headline News led with Janet Jackson's exposed breast. A month ago, while we're in the middle of a war, newscasts all across the country led with Prince Harry's costume at a keg party. It's a business, and while ABC and NBC go for the deeper social issues like Brad and Jennifer's breakup, Fox chooses to run with red, white and blue. And by the way, before you villify them, a survey done in 2002 revealed that seventy percent of the people in this country believe it is good when news organizations take a strong pro-American point of view. Seventy percent. JUDGE GREENBLATT Does that make it right? SHORE Of course it makes it right. Because the rule in infotainment is give the people what they want. The reason Fox is such a big threat is because they're popular. So much so that they've been copied by both CNN and MSNBC. CNN actually toyed with getting Rush Limbaugh to help capture some of Fox's market share. This is money, Your Honor. Not politics. Let me say, I am a great lover of the news. JUDGE GREENBLATT I can see that. SHORE I watch it all. On days like 9/11, or other world-changing events, the news programs are nothing short of spectacular. When President Kennedy was shot, when Martin Luther King delivered "I Have A Dream," when we walked on the moon, our lives were shaped by these events, in part because of the news. But on all the other days,... they're businesses, looking to compete like anybody else in a competitive market place. They sell product. Fox is simply a network like ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, -- chasing the God-almighty buck. And even if you're determined to believe that Fox is some evil empire, looking to spread rightwing propaganda... that still doesn't change the fact that we are in this room today because a principal is shutting down the expression of ideas... because he disagrees with the content. If you say that's okay... my, my. Then we really do have a problem. JUDGE GREENBLATT I grew up watching Walter Cronkite. It was a time, the news seemed to be fair, objective... and trusted. In fact, whenever we doubted the blather coming out of the politicians' mouths... it was the press we turned to to get a sense of the truth. Well... Walter Cronkite has definitely left the building. When it comes to credibility... big media is dead. Networks pander, some to conservatives, others to liberals, and I agree with Mr. Shore, it's probably more about money than ideology. Where it was once the obligation of the media to ask the tough questions, today we have a network operating from a mantra, "don't ask questions." Don't criticize your government. It's horrifying. But Fox is just as free as other networks to adopt a bias in hopes of attracting a bigger audience. JUDGE GREENBLATT (CONT'D) Doesn't make for good journalism... but this network is hardly alone. Mr. Harper, I realize times have changed in the high schools as well. Hate violence is on the rise. Administrators have to be more free to curtail students' civil liberties, including disruptive speech. But attaching a device to a television to block out a certain network because of its content... that seems to go too far. It's censorship. And I cannot let it stand. Motion for the plaintiff... is granted. |
|
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:32:39 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Many of those who believe Faux News is biased also labor under the impression that water is wet. Did anybody watch Boston Legal the other night? A high-schooler was suing his school's principal for putting special "news filters" on the TV's. The only news station that the principal chose to filter out was "the one that calls itself fair and balanced". The judge found in favor of the kid, and forced the principal to remove the filters. The funny parts were the arguments made by James Spader: "But you didn't find it a problem that a certain network published forged national guard documents"? He goes on to successfully make the argument that news has become nothing more than a form of entertainment used by the networks to make money...and should be protected by the First Amendment. news has become nothing more than a form of entertainment used by the networks to make money...and should be protected by the First Amendment. Sadly true -- in all cases Most especially the 'mainstreamers', who play to only one party. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:33:05 -0500, DSK wrote:
Many of those who believe Faux News is biased also labor under the impression that water is wet. NOYB wrote: He goes on to successfully make the argument that news has become nothing more than a form of entertainment used by the networks to make money...and should be protected by the First Amendment. That's funny, many years ago Rush Limbaugh defended himself and his habit of lying egregiously on his program by saying it was "entertainment" and therefor he had no obligation to be accurate... DSK If you could show some proof of that, it would be very nice. I think you're making it up. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:33:05 -0500, DSK wrote: Many of those who believe Faux News is biased also labor under the impression that water is wet. NOYB wrote: He goes on to successfully make the argument that news has become nothing more than a form of entertainment used by the networks to make money...and should be protected by the First Amendment. That's funny, many years ago Rush Limbaugh defended himself and his habit of lying egregiously on his program by saying it was "entertainment" and therefor he had no obligation to be accurate... DSK If you could show some proof of that, it would be very nice. I think you're making it up. -- He'll probably quote someone like al franken, who has as much integrity as michael moore. John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
P.Fritz wrote:
He'll probably quote someone like al franken, who has as much integrity as michael moore. By your own logic, if the things Al Franken said about Rush Limbaugh were not true (for example, that he was on welfare for a while), Limbaugh would have sued him. You certainly can't dispute that he is a drug addict, and by his own publicly announced moral standards should be behind bars for life... but hey, a little hypocrisy never hurt anyone, right? In any event, look up some of Rush Limbaugh's interviews, and some of the things his producer(s) have said about his show. Do you know how to use Google? DSK |
Most folks who consider Fox biased have nothing balanced to which they
can compare. You've spent your life seeing one side. -- John H ************ I see both sides very clearly. One side says I am my brother's keeper. The other says I am my brother's employer, if not his master. He darn well better learn to "keep" himself, and at miniwage if I can con or force him into accepting it. One side says that all of life's values can be reduced to money. The other side says that the most important aspects of life are not for sale. One side measures success by the amount of wealth it can accumulate. The other measures sucess by the amount it can afford to share. One side says we are stewards of the earth. The other side says it is our responsibility to wring all useful resources from the planet at the fastest possible rate. One side makes lists of people who should be shunned or excluded. The other makes lists of people we should reach out to include. The fact that I choose one side with reasonable consistency doesn't mean I can't see the other. Quite the opposite. I see it more clearly than many who embrace it. |
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:02:36 -0500, DSK wrote:
P.Fritz wrote: He'll probably quote someone like al franken, who has as much integrity as michael moore. By your own logic, if the things Al Franken said about Rush Limbaugh were not true (for example, that he was on welfare for a while), Limbaugh would have sued him. You certainly can't dispute that he is a drug addict, and by his own publicly announced moral standards should be behind bars for life... but hey, a little hypocrisy never hurt anyone, right? In any event, look up some of Rush Limbaugh's interviews, and some of the things his producer(s) have said about his show. Do you know how to use Google? DSK You are the one making the accusations. It seems only reasonable for you to provide the proof. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:02:36 -0500, DSK wrote: P.Fritz wrote: He'll probably quote someone like al franken, who has as much integrity as michael moore. By your own logic, if the things Al Franken said about Rush Limbaugh were not true (for example, that he was on welfare for a while), Limbaugh would have sued him. You certainly can't dispute that he is a drug addict, and by his own publicly announced moral standards should be behind bars for life... but hey, a little hypocrisy never hurt anyone, right? In any event, look up some of Rush Limbaugh's interviews, and some of the things his producer(s) have said about his show. Do you know how to use Google? DSK You are the one making the accusations. It seems only reasonable for you to provide the proof. But with liebrals.....it is simply the seriousness of the accusation........not whether they have any proof. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
If you don't watch a channel that shows both sides, how do you ever see
the other side? ************* I don't learn about comparable values by "watching a channel". If I wanted to watch programming that showed both sides, I wouldn't waste my time with Faux News. I've sampled it from time to time. If Faux News wanted to show "both sides" of some issue where they have a clear bias, they would do so under conditions specifically chosen and controlled to cast a favorable light on their own foregone conclusions. Example: Lets say that Faux News decided to (appear to) show "both sides" of the situation in Iraq. Under the Faux News model, they would go about it like this: First, they would find the most polished, well-spoken pro-war spokesperson available and give that person ten minutes to read from the a carefully scripted pro-war, pro-Bush gospel. The same 30-second footage of the single Iraqi ever to throw candy and flowers at US troops (without a grenade in the bouqet or without first soaking the Tootsie Roll Pops in aresenic), would play repeatedly during the almost uninterrupted monologoue. (The non-existant studio audience would "applaud" at regular intervals). At the end of the speech, the pro-war spokesperson would take calls from "randomly selected viewers" and 90% of them would be "atta-boys!". (One anti-war caller would be allowed through if one could be found to speak incoherently enough, and if an anti-war caller could be put on the air who sounds as though he or she might have been drinking- or smoking- heavily, all the better). To present the "other side" and appear "fair and balanced" they would recruit some moderate to poor speaker to present the anti-war position. The person would be given three and a half minutes, and not allowed to read from a prepared script. If possible, the anti-war person selected will be somebody who recently lost a political contest or was not-quite-so-recently involved in a messy scandal. During the anti-war person's speech, footage of the Daniel Berg beheading or similar video-taped atrocity, (one of the other side's atrocities, of course), would play continuously. The non-existant studio audience would be strangely silent, or there might be a few people heard clearing throats at an unnatural volume. At the end of the short speech, calls from randomly selected viewers might be taken on the air. 90% of the callers allowed through or invented by the screener will disagree with the anti-war position. If another slobbering drunk can be found, (or invented), to call in some "support" for the anti-war postion, he will be elevated to the top of the que and put on the air to create the appearance of fairness and balance. There you go. "Fair and Balanced". PT Barnum and George Goebbels would have loved it! How sad that such tricks sucker so many, and so completely. |
|
and their is always
someone representing the liberal side on Hannity and Colmes (Al Sharpton numerous times). ********** Bingo! Al Sharpton is an extremist. The fact that you sincerely believe he accurately represents the "liberal side" shows how well the strategy works. |
I don't know who hannity and colmes are, but, then, I don't pay any attention to sharpton, either. Wait...I have seen hannity once...he's a horse's ass. Who is colmes? Who is colmes? An Ass like you harry GO FOX NEWS the only truth in news |
|
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:44:32 -0600, "Bill" wrote:
I don't know who hannity and colmes are, but, then, I don't pay any attention to sharpton, either. Wait...I have seen hannity once...he's a horse's ass. Who is colmes? Who is colmes? An Ass like you harry GO FOX NEWS the only truth in news I'm not too wild about Colmes either, but comparing him to the likes of Harry is darnright cruel. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com