Quote :

"Would you also consider fabricating an entire story for a 1-hour expose on 60-minutes on the eve of a presidential election to be "asking tough questions?" Both sides are full of shit. Get over it. Liberals have shit like CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, and CBS. Conservatives have fox. deal with it"

I do deal with it, with skepticism, scrutiny, and sharing information. I'm not going to sit back and be an unquestioning idiot.

[Edited on October 23, 2009 at 12:17 AM. Reason : ]

10/23/2009 12:17:27 AM

good. but don't act like Fox is the only station guilty of such spin. Hell, whenever i hear someone telling me I can trust them, that is generally what puts my ears up and turns on my bullshit detector. I at least appreciate that Fox reminds me all the damn time to turn it on, lol

10/23/2009 12:18:44 AM

They are currently the worst offender. I hate the commentators and what they stand for, and I hate that they are destroying vulnerable minds by spreading fear and misinformation. So, naturally I am focused on them more.

10/23/2009 12:33:48 AM

oh, please. Hell, just the other day I turned on CNN and heard them bitching about whether or not it was fair that most of talk-radio was conservative. give me a fucking break

no, you just hate them because they disagree with you. man up and admit it

[Edited on October 23, 2009 at 12:38 AM. Reason : ]

10/23/2009 12:37:55 AM

NEVER

that diminishes the appeal


what you expect four huge conglmos to just come out and say anything at once? thats the only way the drones who watch them will buy it.


fucking beautiful though. this is the biggest shit YET the obama admin has done, and it backfired like a motherfucker

10/23/2009 12:53:52 AM

what is the biggest shit yet? the "war on fox?"

10/23/2009 1:05:21 AM

fox is dominating news ratings, whether you like them or not

get over it

10/23/2009 3:19:44 AM

Quote :

"Oliver North is a war criminal. He doesn't have to be convicted of war crimes to be considered one."

I just want to bring this up again...

You can either make a case with something really insightful that I'm not aware of, or you can look like a motherfucking idiot--in either case, I think a statement like that bears some more explanation. I'm not even basing my argument around "convictions" (I mean, OJ Simpson isn't a convicted murderer...). I'm asking what in the hell sort of "war crimes" Ollie North ever committed.

Are you just using inflammatory language to the point of being incorrect (i.e., he was in the military, and committed a crime, so let's call him a "war criminal"?)

10/23/2009 3:38:38 AM

He sold weapons to Iran and funneled the profits to the Contras in Nicaragua and then shredded all documents regarding his activities.

But, let's give him a show!



EDIT: and RE: Fox News, I'd like the defenders of Fox News to try and explain away everything in this image:

http://files.kinabrew.com/images/foxnews.jpg


[Edited on October 23, 2009 at 9:32 AM. Reason : ]

10/23/2009 9:30:05 AM

tit for tat is pointless, God. I will explain all of those images if you go to newsbusters and explain every single one of their examples of MSLM bias. its pointless.

10/23/2009 9:59:24 AM

Translation: HEH, I'm just going to disregard any evidence that contradicts my own biases.

10/23/2009 10:34:15 AM

you understand newsbusters is slanted and biased as well, don't you? They are not a non-partisan organization that seeks out bias in any area of news, but rather a group that is actively searching for bias in what it labels as the "mainstream media", whatever that is really supposed to mean.

anyone who is looking for evidence of something will manage to find it. newsbusters is probably is unbiased and reliable a source of information as conservapedia.

I don't really understand what this label, when coming from fox or other popular sources, of mainstream media is really supposed to mean. does fox mean mainstream media as anyone who reports a story with a different view than themselves, since they are often in the minority?

When i was younger i used to go to a website that mentioned the flaws and lacking journalistic integrity of the mainstream news. at the time it was http://www.sightings.com, but i think only http://www.rense.com is still active. for all intents and purposes it is a conspiracy theory website, but they use many of the same claims of victimization as fox as well as claims as the sole voice of truth. the followers of this website also believe every word that comes from it.

i'm not saying that fox news is a bunch of conspiracy theorists or that even rense.com isn't a reliable media outlet, thats for others to judge, but a similar mentality is held by both.

so far numerous fox supporters have justified and defended fox's reporting with the childish notion of "you too". I have as of yet to see a reasonable defense of their practices that didn't revolve around tu quoque.

The simple truth is that fox claims to be fair and balanced, but they are obviously not. end of story. they don't even do a decent job at faking it.

the reason many conservatives are in love with fox news is it provides them with an outlet to reaffirm their beliefs. no one enjoys considering that their fundamentals are wrong and viewing fox removes that self reflection they may otherwise be able to endure.

the right has been doing this for a long time. the right reinforces that everyone is in agreement with them, but no one is admitting to it. From nixon's silent majority, to claims of left wing media bias, and to claims of the US being a center right country these claims keep coming to feed their delusions.

To be honest, and maybe i'm just wearing blinders, i don't any bias on CNN. I often see people from multiple sides and neither one is a punching bag like colmes. there is genuine discussion on issues, and while it may not always be resolved, there is at least a presentation of two sides. i even see CNN question the president and ask if he is completing the promises he made.

MSNBC is the only organization that I see with a clear left bias and that doesn't even remotely match the level of fox. Fox continues to report with misinformation. providing a slant is one thing, but misinformation is a horse of a different color.

I could go on and on, but its best that i just stop here.

10/23/2009 10:41:56 AM

You all are still not addressing the larger issues.

-While there are parallels to be made between Fox and the... "MSLM?" (iswydt), the frequency and amplitude aren't remotely comparable. For every Rathergate, there are 10 Vince Foster type stories. The only reason they're not as noteworthy is that Dan Rather was actually held to a high standard, whereas everyone expects yellow journalism from Fox, Drudge, and AM radio.

-It's extremely hard to believe that the slight bias that the MSM has is intentional or systematic. Remember-- Dan Rather was fired. Meanwhile, have you heard the founder of Fox News is considering running for the Republican presidential nomination?

http://www.politico.com/playbook/1009/playbook841.html


-Fox, Drudge, and AM radio play significantly different roles in political realms. They deserve more scrutiny because they seriously are a significant component in the de facto Republican leadership.


Unless you all want to seriously address these issues, I can't take your arguments seriously.

10/23/2009 11:11:45 AM

I think one of the fundamental reasons why it is so hard for you guys to see the bias in NYT/MSLM is that you don't actually understand what the conservative arguments are. A lot of times, the MSLM will present "both sides" in the same way that FOX does - with a very weak opponent or presenting a very weak or non-existent "argument" from the opposing side.

Because of your familiarity with the liberal point of view, you can quickly see that FOX has gotten it wrong, but you do not realize it when the MSLM does the same thing to the conservative argument.

I, on the other hand, educate myself on both sides of the issue and try to keep myself out of echo chambers. It is very easy for me to identify bias in both Fox News and NYT. I will acknowledge that CNN is less biased than Fox News. But if you can't see that it is tilted to the left somewhat, well... go read up on real conservatism and maybe you'll start to see it.

[Edited on October 23, 2009 at 11:24 AM. Reason : s]

10/23/2009 11:22:39 AM

Quote :

"the MSLM will present "both sides" in the same way that FOX does "

GET THIS THROUGH YOUR DUMB FUCKING HEAD: FOX NEWS IS MAIN STREAM MEDIA. THE TWO ARE NOT SEPARATE ENTITIES. FOX NEWS CANNOT SIMULTANEOUSLY OCCUPY A MAJORITY OF CABLE NEWS RATINGS WHILE STILL CLAIMING TO BE SEPARATE FROM THE MAIN STREAM.

10/23/2009 11:35:58 AM

Oh I'm sorry, I thought Barack Obama had just claimed that Fox was NOT mainstream news - in fact, I thought he claimed that Fox was not even news at all...In fact, I thought that you guys were trying to say that Fox was a wing of the GOP communication organization!

Furthermore, even though Fox has high cable news ratings, that is still a super small piece of the entire media pie, including newspaper, network, local news, entertainment/movies, etc.


Oh and you might want do recheck the acronym I used... MSLM != MSM

dumbass. you and your knee-jerk liberal reflexes.

[Edited on October 23, 2009 at 11:40 AM. Reason : s]

10/23/2009 11:37:27 AM

I acknowledge that CNN is tilted to the left. It has a "big city," anti-bigotry, pro-academia bias. While it doesn't make them biased in relation to reality, I understand that it makes them biased in relation to the American political spectrum.

But then there's the issue of magnitude.

Then the issue of systematic bias v. de facto bias.

Then there's the fact that CNN isn't steering the DNC.

10/23/2009 11:44:57 AM

maybe you shouldn't use stupid fucking gimmick acronyms

10/23/2009 11:49:15 AM

^^

here's a hot tip: if you think your side most closely mirrors "reality" (whatever the fuck that means), then you're not going to see the bias that favors your side.

[Edited on October 23, 2009 at 11:56 AM. Reason : s]

10/23/2009 11:55:48 AM

is that advice that you are giving everyone else or yourself?

10/23/2009 11:58:33 AM

An anti-bigotry, pro-science "bias" is only a bias within the realm of American politics. It's called "acceptance of reality" is all other situations.

10/23/2009 11:59:30 AM

I don't need that advice because i'm not a rabid partisan for either side.

Quote :

"An anti-bigotry, pro-science "bias" is only a bias within the realm of American politics. It's called "acceptance of reality" is all other situations."

I like the implicit definition of conservatism as "pro-bigotry, anti-science." well done, mr. no bias man.

[Edited on October 23, 2009 at 12:00 PM. Reason : s]

10/23/2009 11:59:30 AM

Oh, right. You're the disinterested, non-partisan sage, keeping all of us partisans in touch with reality, a la TreeTwista.

^What is social conservatism other than intolerance for others' creed/liefstyle? And then there's evolution and climate change.

[Edited on October 23, 2009 at 12:04 PM. Reason : ]

10/23/2009 12:01:46 PM

no, i'll admit that watching liberals squirm is more entertaining to me than watching conservatives...

But I'm no partisan. I guess I'm just not quite as naive as some media consumers and can identify the bias in whatever media i happen to be consuming.

10/23/2009 12:06:01 PM

I've already admitted the bias from the MSM. I merely contested that it's only biased in the grand scheme of things as a result of an equal time fallacy. Scientists who argue for evolution are certainly "biased" according to conservatives, but not to reality.

Anyhoo:

Quote :

"But then there's the issue of magnitude. Then the issue of systematic bias v. de facto bias. Then there's the fact that CNN isn't steering the DNC."

[Edited on October 23, 2009 at 12:11 PM. Reason : ]

10/23/2009 12:08:52 PM

I like how you define any liberal bias as being "biased towards reality"

Perhaps you meant "my reality"


I also like how you've set up a strawman conservative archetype that makes it easy for you to be smug in your liberal bias. Maybe I should set up a code-pink spiky hair lesbian on-the-dole lilly-livered archetype for your side. But I don't because that would be an obvious fallacy.

[Edited on October 23, 2009 at 12:20 PM. Reason : s]

10/23/2009 12:13:34 PM

Quote :

"What is social conservatism other than intolerance for others' creed/liefstyle? And then there's evolution and climate change. "

Are you really going to try and act like liberalism has a high tolerance for others' creeds? It's also ironic that you bring up "climate change" as some kind of evidence for an "anti-science" bias. Have you even THOUGHT about the lack of science going on in the "climate change" debate? The kind of "science" that says "ignore evidence that doesn't fit our conclusion"...

10/23/2009 2:13:41 PM

Quote :

"But I'm no partisan"

You may not claim to be left or right, but you have this holier-than-thou politically agnostic attitude. Anyone who takes a side on an issue or calls the other side on something is a partisan idiot to you it seems.

What you don't seem to get is while there are philisophical disagreements between parties, there are also right and wrong ideas. Conservative who think evolution is bogus is not matter of disgreement. It is a matter of them being wrong. It does not make you partisn to call them wrong on that.

10/23/2009 2:27:54 PM

Quote :

"Are you really going to try and act like liberalism has a high tolerance for others' creeds? It's also ironic that you bring up "climate change" as some kind of evidence for an "anti-science" bias. Have you even THOUGHT about the lack of science going on in the "climate change" debate? The kind of "science" that says "ignore evidence that doesn't fit our conclusion"..."

lol, you're insane.

10/23/2009 2:30:31 PM

Quote :

"Are you really going to try and act like liberalism has a high tolerance for others' creeds?"

Like what? I'd like to know. I don't watch much liberal news.

[Edited on October 23, 2009 at 2:33 PM. Reason : .]

10/23/2009 2:31:08 PM

To whoever said that: Yes. Try listening to "All Things Considered" or "Morning Edition" on NPR.

10/23/2009 2:40:41 PM

let's see, for starters, listen to how liberals bash religion. or listen to how they bash anyone who doesn't agree with them. they are just as self-righteous as any one else.

what's that? you think homosexuality is wrong? well, you're just a bigot. qft

10/23/2009 3:43:30 PM

I was hoping for something more specific, from the MEDIA. Something comparable to Fox's history of race-baiting.

10/23/2009 3:58:06 PM

Quote :

"let's see, for starters, listen to how liberals bash religion."

Citation needed. Please use a clip from the mainstream media.

Quote :

"or listen to how they bash anyone who doesn't agree with them."

Citation needed. Please use a clip from the mainstream media that isn't opinion journalism (Olbermann/Maddow).

Both of those should be easy to locate, since apparently every news organization besides Fox News is "liberal."

Quote :

"what's that? you think homosexuality is wrong? well, you're just a bigot. qft"

No, that is not what makes you a bigot. Wanting to restrict the rights and freedoms of homosexuals because you think homosexuality is wrong is what makes you a bigot.

10/23/2009 3:58:33 PM

why should I have to post a clip from the media when there was no mention made of the media doing such things. Rather, it was liberals.

If you'd like some fine examples of liberal tolerance, though, go look at Tancredo at UNC. again, q.f.t.

however, I do, off the top of my head, remember a fantastic Science Friday episode on evolution where the callers, the host, and the guest all bemoaned the "ignorance and stupidity" of people who questioned evolution. Even to the point of "how do we talk some sense in to these people." That hardly smacks of tolerance

[Edited on October 23, 2009 at 4:12 PM. Reason : ]

10/23/2009 4:10:20 PM

The one about texas school requirements? They were bemoaning the assholes who take evolution out of text books.

10/23/2009 4:25:14 PM

Quote :

"why should I have to post a clip from the media when there was no mention made of the media doing such things. Rather, it was liberals."

Do what?

Put up or get the fuck out. If you can't back up your claims no one wants you here.

Quote :

"the guest all bemoaned the "ignorance and stupidity" of people who questioned evolution. Even to the point of "how do we talk some sense in to these people." That hardly smacks of tolerance"

People who believe in Creationism, something completely unfounded by any science, are idiots.

10/23/2009 4:30:47 PM

There are liberals who bash religion, but religion bashing is nowhere near a core tenant of liberalism.

Given that I'm responding to burro, this is sure to devolve into a "but you're intolerant of intolerance!" conversation.

10/23/2009 4:58:09 PM

Quote :

"People who believe in Creationism, something completely unfounded by any science, are idiots."

so are people who believe in Jesus or Allah

wtf does that have to do with being tolerant?

10/23/2009 5:30:36 PM

Quote :

"Do what? Put up or get the fuck out. If you can't back up your claims no one wants you here."

reread what I did and did not say. no where did I say that the media is intolerant. reading is fundamental, dude.

Quote :

"People who believe in Creationism, something completely unfounded by any science, are idiots."

Is that more of your liberal tolerance?

10/23/2009 6:23:33 PM

I will not sympathize with their desire to spread bad science, nor allow them to do so without resistance. Sorry. Intolerance is not inherently bad. Sometimes intolerance can be good (intolerance of violence, hate, etc.) I know thats a difficult concept to grasp.

10/23/2009 6:34:53 PM

if only that were the only thing they were intolerant of, then you might have a point. but you don't.

Now, what God posted said nothing about them trying to spread it. It spoke only of their belief. Are you intolerant of them even holding the belief? God certainly is

10/23/2009 6:42:26 PM

No, I'm intolerant of their actions not their beliefs.

10/23/2009 6:51:53 PM

It's not intolerant to think that someone is ignorant for holding a certain belief.

10/23/2009 6:57:22 PM

I like how all conservatives are creationists and that belief is what allows the liberals to feel so smug in their inability to detect liberal bias in the NYT.

10/23/2009 8:09:17 PM

Behind the War Between White House and Fox
October 22, 2009

Quote :

"In a sign of discomfort with the White House stance, Fox's television news competitors refused to go along with a Treasury Department effort on Tuesday to exclude Fox from a round of interviews with the executive-pay czar Kenneth R. Feinberg that was to be conducted with a 'pool' camera crew shared by all the networks. That followed a pointed question at a White House briefing this week by Jake Tapper, an ABC News correspondent, about the administration's treatment of 'one of our sister organizations.' White House officials continue to interact with Fox News correspondents whom they have complimented as professional, including Major Garrett and Wendell Goler."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us/politics/23fox.html

10/23/2009 8:33:36 PM

Quote :

"It's not intolerant to think that someone is ignorant for holding a certain belief."

actually, it kind of is

10/23/2009 8:54:35 PM

Tolerant doesn't mean wishy-washy. It means accepting others' right to their opinions.

You're mind-bogglingly ignorant if you accept young-earth creationism. You also have the right to be mind-bogglingly ignorant so long as your ignorance don't interfere with others' rights.

This is a concept that social conservatives seem to understand very clearly in all aspects except for religion/culture.

10/23/2009 10:22:03 PM

from last week

10/23/2009 10:44:07 PM

Quote :

"What war was [Oliver North] a criminal from? Iran-Contra? That was a hostage situation coupled with supporting rebels. Hardly a war."

Unless I'm mistaken, he was responsible for training Nicaraguan death squads.

10/23/2009 10:49:23 PM