^^ Okay, here's what should be an obvious one: the involvement of the Democrats, particularly specific top members of Congress, in the housing crisis.

And go!

NB: This post will be followed by a bunch of far-left bellyaching and bullshit.

1/10/2009 7:44:43 PM

Plenty in the MSM covered that topic. Btw, Hannity/Rush/OReilley aren't MSM? Really confused here.

1/10/2009 11:03:07 PM

^ Just like there's a war on Christmas, and Christians are being persecuted here, the most watched news channel is not in fact mainstream.

1/10/2009 11:10:16 PM

So, I watched the new Hannity show on FOX News. And I have to admit, I actually miss Alan Colmes--master of the tu quoque logical fallacy.

BTW, Meat Loaf (yeah, I know) was on a panel and either his meds are out of whack or he has some sort of blood sugar disorder. Bizarre.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cd4-v-Qo6c

[Edited on January 14, 2009 at 1:04 AM. Reason : Link.]

1/14/2009 1:04:13 AM

^^ "mainstream" refers to the one-mindedness of the network news like ABC,CBS,NBC, CNN etc...

Rush is probably best illustrates this with this news-montages of the group-speak,

For example, the term "sharp elbows" was used to describe Rahmbo a couple months back in the election cycle.

I think Rush's term "drive-by" media is a better descriptor for the horde of unethical psuedo-journalists that currently plague society, Fox News certainly not excluded.

1/14/2009 2:15:51 AM

Quote :

"Rush is probably best illustrates this with this news-montages of the group-speak, For example, the term "sharp elbows" was used to describe Rahmbo a couple months back in the election cycle. "

i've never heard this segment from Rush, but it sounds very similar to what The Daily Show used to do all the time when it took clips from Fox, Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc who often said the exact same sentences and phrases, verbatim. Scott McClellan confirmed these sound bites often came straight from the White House.

1/14/2009 9:12:04 AM

What's with all of that blatant eye candy ... it wouldn't be so ovious if they had at least one brunette (I haven't watched it that much, but there were nothing but blonde babes in the background).

1/14/2009 9:39:35 PM

Yeah, that is the one redeeming feature of Fox News, no matter how much O'Riley is plastered on the screen there's at least an equal amount of high end tail on screen.

1/14/2009 9:50:00 PM

Does Fox News have any foreign correspondents?

1/15/2009 7:13:22 PM

I think all of their people count as foreign correspondents given how out of touch they are with reality.

1/15/2009 10:35:55 PM

here's a sampling of Fox News shows (plus Rush) for the first 2 days of Obama.
amazing......
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=216561&title=fox-news-fear-imbalance

Rush's quote is even surprising for him, considering he would be all over a lefty who said the same thing about Bush

1/23/2009 9:43:33 PM

Obama on Fox News Beats Obama on MSNBC

Quote :

"Additionally, Fox News documentary Gov. Palin: American Woman, which aired Saturday at 8 p.m., stands as the network's most-watched primetime documentary ever, averaging 2.73 million viewers with 673,000 in the demo."

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/94192-Obama_on_Fox_News_Beats_Obama_on_MSNBC.php

1/24/2009 12:30:28 AM

of course people watched fox news for that particular interview

it was when that dumb irritating cunt o'reilly kept cutting obama off.

shit i watched it with hopes that someone would lay a beat down to that arrogant, irresponsible reporting cocksucker

o'reilly gives the whole network a bad name because he is such a nutjob.

1/24/2009 12:33:25 AM

^ O'Reilly can definitely be overbearing and he does interrupt too much. I mostly watch Special Report with Bret Baier and some daytime coverage.

PS: FWIW (daytime), like Cavuto et al.

[Edited on January 24, 2009 at 12:37 AM. Reason : .]

1/24/2009 12:36:27 AM

Wow, that is the first time I've actually seen Limbaughs mug in quite a long time, and damn, he looks terrible.

1/24/2009 8:17:10 AM

4/27/2009 12:32:17 PM

haha, Fox News Special Report just reported on a study that came out about the first 100 days of media press coverage. They highlighted the 4 networks' nightly news shows + Fox News Special Report, saying that he was getting more press, and better press than Clinton and Bush. But the funny part was when they showed the amount of "positive coverage" - the main networks were all in the 50%'s for positive coverage, and the Fox News Special Report was at 13% positive.

I guess you could reasonably argue that positive coverage in the 50's is too high on one hand, but 13% from Fox News? And they are the "fair and balanced" ones? Hilarious.

4/27/2009 6:36:36 PM

yeah i loled when i read that as well

4/27/2009 6:42:00 PM

the 13% is to balance out all the multiple media liberal conglomerates

4/27/2009 7:05:51 PM

so, if you watch all the channels and take an average of 53, 54, 55 and 13, you should be the "real" number?

4/27/2009 7:08:32 PM

math is irrelevant when you're defending freedom from the clutches of a triple combo socialist/communist/fascist

4/27/2009 7:15:47 PM

^i concur

4/27/2009 7:22:32 PM

Typically, a newsperson shouldn't be saying positive or negative things about someone. They should just be reporting facts.

13% sounds good to me. Sounds like they're doing the least amount of editorializing.

4/27/2009 7:42:50 PM

^ not if that means the other 87% is negative press.

4/27/2009 7:44:36 PM

is that what it means?

4/27/2009 7:45:14 PM

I don't know, i don't think the report has been linked here.

But, i'd guess Fox New's reporting has been decidedly more negative than any other one has been positive.

4/27/2009 7:51:07 PM

People are still falling for the Solinari troll bait?

4/27/2009 7:55:38 PM

there are some things that are decidedly "good or bad". The channels can choose to report or ignore them selectively. They can also put whatever spin they want on any particular story.

4/27/2009 7:58:13 PM

Quote :

"I don't know"

Exactly, but I guess its more comfortable to just swallow the Daily Show bullshit every night and make fun of "Faux News" because that's what your friends do.

4/27/2009 10:38:02 PM

lol

4/27/2009 11:14:31 PM

Quote :

"I guess you could reasonably argue that positive coverage in the 50's is too high on one hand, but 13% from Fox News? And they are the "fair and balanced" ones? Hilarious."

considering that the economy is in the shitter and still spiraling down, 13% sounds about right.

4/27/2009 11:26:59 PM

yeah because the economy wasnt losing 600k jobs a month before obama came in

jackass

4/28/2009 12:49:51 AM

and i'm sure that bush wasn't responsible for 9/11, either, right?

Let's see - if the economy is still crappy this Sept., will Obama be to blame or not?

4/28/2009 7:29:57 AM

9/11 = economy

makes perfect sense i guess

4/28/2009 9:29:54 AM

Just stop replying to Solinari people, ffs. The guy is actually pretty smart (probably graduated EE with a 4.0), way too smart to be making such stupid comments. His MO for his entire tww career is to do some pretty generic thinly veiled trolling. Stop falling for it.

4/28/2009 9:44:45 AM

Considering the overwhelming amount of blatantly negative coverage I've seen on Fox News, I'm inclined to go along with the article's implication that the other 87% is negative coverage (as opposed to "impartial").

4/28/2009 10:20:57 AM

i think just working for Fox makes you dumber -- or they just intentionally avoid all things cerebral.

my main evidence is Eric Bolling on Fox Business. on CNBC, he was the smartest guy in the room. on Fox Biz he looks like they forced him to take a dumb pill before he came on air

4/28/2009 3:54:39 PM

Quote :

"9/11 = economy makes perfect sense i guess"

lol, I guess I didn't anticipate the, "no wai man, its toootally different for the democrat" argument. eh.... I guess thats why its called partisanship

Quote :

"I'm inclined to go along with the article's implication that the other 87% is negative coverage (as opposed to "impartial")."

I didn't get that implication at all. Perhaps its a bias on your part? Maybe not, it could be cynicism to the effect that you think its impossible for a news organization to be impartial at any time.

The implication that I got was that they didn't measure negative coverage and so that result remains an open question.



I submit to you this google search for your critical review:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22common+sense%22+vs.+science


[Edited on April 28, 2009 at 6:33 PM. Reason : s]

4/28/2009 6:26:58 PM

to be fair, the economy probably would have done a hell of a lot better if the media hadn't gone hysterical over it. I wonder how many of the banks would have actually gone under if they hadn't had various networks saying they were in trouble every 5 minutes

4/28/2009 6:35:26 PM

I think its funny that my prediction is turning out to be correct. Back between '04-'07, when the money was flowing free, the news kept running all these "doom and gloom" stories about how hard it was for people to survive in the recession. Now we know what a real recession is like!! HAHA give me back the '06 recession and I'll be a happy man

Now, granted, things weren't so hot under the covers, but the news wasn't covering the dry-rot in the economy, they were manufacturing false symptoms of a bad economy to try to push a political agenda which needed people to think we were in a recession.

[Edited on April 28, 2009 at 6:48 PM. Reason : s]

4/28/2009 6:46:53 PM

what was blamed for the '06 recession? wasn't really paying attention. I do remember people kept talking about the housing bubble for a long time especially with all the flip this house shows.

4/28/2009 7:01:25 PM

bush was typically blamed. This was the prototypical story back when the DOW was at 14k:

"Look at this family of 4 that can't afford to buy go-gurt snacks anymore because of the horrible recession that we are in. Bush is clearly to blame."


I'm not saying that there wasn't dry-rot in the economy or that Bush's policies didn't have something to do with what we're going through right now. Nevertheless, that's not what the "recession of '06" stories were about. They were just about, "things are bad right now!!! so bad!!! belt tightening everywhere!!"

[Edited on April 28, 2009 at 7:05 PM. Reason : s]

4/28/2009 7:03:23 PM

was that when they were messing with the interest rates? I do remember that.

4/28/2009 7:08:00 PM

fond memories for the recession of '06.... sigh.

4/28/2009 7:12:41 PM

Quote :

"to be fair, the economy probably would have done a hell of a lot better if the media hadn't gone hysterical over it. I wonder how many of the banks would have actually gone under if they hadn't had various networks saying they were in trouble every 5 minutes"

As best as I can tell, nearly every major news network including npr have been touting the bottom is in and the worst is over for the past month now, and yet we learn today that BAC and C are going to need more capital thanks to you and I. Bad news and networks talking about weak institutions did a service to investors of those institutions, not a disservice to the institutions.

4/28/2009 9:45:37 PM

yeah, i still fail to see how media hysterics, while I'm not denying they exist, have anything to do with the fundamental problems that these banks are facing because of the decisions they've made over the past decades

4/28/2009 9:54:45 PM

i dont think whoever wrote that knows how monumental lehman brothers bankruptcy was

4/28/2009 10:01:24 PM

Quote :

"I think its funny that my prediction is turning out to be correct. Back between '04-'07, when the money was flowing free, the news kept running all these "doom and gloom" stories about how hard it was for people to survive in the recession. Now we know what a real recession is like!! HAHA give me back the '06 recession and I'll be a happy man Now, granted, things weren't so hot under the covers, but the news wasn't covering the dry-rot in the economy, they were manufacturing false symptoms of a bad economy to try to push a political agenda which needed people to think we were in a recession. [Edited on April 28, 2009 at 6:48 PM. Reason : s] 4/28/2009 6:46:53 PM"

This is the worst trolling I think this section has seen in years. Did you really just post all that?

4/28/2009 10:03:19 PM

yes, npr et al have been touting that the bottom has hit for the past month. They conveniently waited until Obama got elected and pushed some of his shit on us, too. BUT, remember when they started going apeshit: september, October, etc. They induced the panic that caused the massive sell-offs of stock and such that truly brought these banks to their knees.

yes, bad loan practices and risky investments are ultimately to blame, yet it just seems coincidental that as the news agencies started naming names, the named started to falter. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy. We started to see the bottoming-out in July, with an uptic, then the doom-and-gloom came, and BAM, drops like a rock. The media certainly played their part, and I think it's obvious why: it helped their candidate

4/28/2009 11:07:26 PM

^^ yea he is a pretty consistent troll.. but i respond not to argue just to see how far the trolling goes.

[Edited on April 29, 2009 at 12:07 AM. Reason : .]

4/29/2009 12:05:26 AM