Discussion: FOX News

[Marx]

COLMES TO LEAVE 'HANNITY & COLMES'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/24/alan-colmes-to-leave-hann_n_146069.html

[Hobodeluxe]

MSNBC does have a left leaning evening slot of shows but it also has Scarborough and his cast of dummies on for 3 hours in the mornings to give it some semblance of balance.
And MSNBC isn't raising funds for the Democratic party like Fox is soliciting funds for the conservative PAC The National Republican Trust PAC (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/24/morris-pac/) that it's employee Dick Morris works for.

Besides even Maddow gives Obama down the road for his backtracking on his campaign promises to investigate and prosecute possible war crimes. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#27898222)

CNN is it's usual corporate shill self.

[gap5ewl]

COLMES TO LEAVE 'HANNITY & COLMES'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/24/alan-colmes-to-leave-hann_n_146069.html


Yeah he's going to be demoted to a talking head now. The show is just going to be a Hannity party. Oh noes :csad:

[Marx]

Yeah he's going to be demoted to a talking head now. The show is just going to be a Hannity party. Oh noes :csad:

Another reason NOT to watch FOX News. :cwink:

[C.F. Kane]

Yeah he's going to be demoted to a talking head now. The show is just going to be a Hannity party. Oh noes :csad:

So, the show will remain exactly the same then.

[C.F. Kane]

This guy (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D) has made a whole library of examples of Fox News' right-wing bias.

Here's his latest:

ERMqBT4pWkc

Apparently they did an overview of the movie "Milk", about Harvey Milk, without once mentioning that he was a first openly gay man elected to public office in this country, which is what the entire movie is about.

[Marx]

This guy (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D) has made a whole library of examples of Fox News' right-wing bias.

Here's his latest:

ERMqBT4pWkc

Apparently they did an overview of the movie "Milk", about Harvey Milk, without once mentioning that he was a first openly gay man elected to public office in this country, which is what the entire movie is about.

Why doesn't that surprise me...

[Corey]

This guy (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D) has made a whole library of examples of Fox News' right-wing bias.

Here's his latest:

ERMqBT4pWkc

Apparently they did an overview of the movie "Milk", about Harvey Milk, without once mentioning that he was a first openly gay man elected to public office in this country, which is what the entire movie is about.


Of all the examples available of Fox News's blatant bias, this is just a speck on the radar, to me. To be honest, I really don't see this as that big of a deal. I was expecting something a lot more egregious.

[ScottyBBadd]

COLMES TO LEAVE 'HANNITY & COLMES'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/24/alan-colmes-to-leave-hann_n_146069.html

I guess he got tired of bieng the token liberal on FNN.

[Paradyme]

This guy (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D) has made a whole library of examples of Fox News' right-wing bias.

Here's his latest:

ERMqBT4pWkc

Apparently they did an overview of the movie "Milk", about Harvey Milk, without once mentioning that he was a first openly gay man elected to public office in this country, which is what the entire movie is about.

How in the world do you consider that right-wing bias?

It's bad journalism/research. They just never mentioned it thats it.

[Superman4ever]

How in the world do you consider that right-wing bias?

It's bad journalism/research. They just never mentioned it thats it.

*Fart*

[Corey]

*Fart*


Right--absolutely succident. As always, Superman4ever makes an excellent point. I wholeheartedly agree with those sentiments. :up:


I aspire to, maybe, one day, have the kind of mastery and cammand of the english language that you holster on a daily basis.



:woot:

[C.F. Kane]

How in the world do you consider that right-wing bias?

It's bad journalism/research. They just never mentioned it thats it.

If you watch the video, the user makes the argument that ignoring his sexual orientation effectively closets him.

[The Senator]

How in the world do you consider that right-wing bias?

It's bad journalism/research. They just never mentioned it thats it.

Okay.

Well, considering the movie trailer and most TV spots mention the fact that Milk was the first openly gay man elected to public office, and every single press release about this film mentions that fact, I don't see how this is simply a case of "bad journalism/ research."

Bad research would have been if they said Harvey Milk was elected to the House of Representatives or was shot on the street. Bad research is not leaving out the point of the movie altogether.

[Paradyme]

Okay.

Well, considering the movie trailer and most TV spots mention the fact that Milk was the first openly gay man elected to public office, and every single press release about this film mentions that fact, I don't see how this is simply a case of "bad journalism/ research."

Bad research would have been if they said Harvey Milk was elected to the House of Representatives or was shot on the street. Bad research is not leaving out the point of the movie altogether.

I have yet to see a trailer on this movie and I watch a lot of t.v. You can say that all you want but it still brings me back to the point that if she didn't mention his sexual orientation how in the hell is that right wing bias?

I'm just spit balling here guys with the bad journalism because I've seen it before (just about everywhere) including Fox News with a video game incident awhile back. Maybe, just maybe, they didn't think it was important to mention because they didn't want it to distract people from seeing it because maybe it's a good movie? I don't know but you can't honestly sit there and say it's bias because I'm not sure bias is the right choice of words. Maybe a cover up but bias? I'm just not seeing it.

[Paradyme]

If you watch the video, the user makes the argument that ignoring his sexual orientation effectively closets him.

Rewatched the video and we are stumbling into a gray area now where opinion is going to creep in. Milk wanted orientation to be disclosed. My question is why is that important? and what does this have to do with right wing bias?

[sinewave]

Why does it feel like, to me anyways, that conservatives feel that if something isn't "pro-conservative" that it equals "anti-conservative" and "pro-liberal"? This also includes "non-pro-Christian" is "anti-christian" and "non-pro-America" is "anti-America"? And their answer to this supposed bias is to fight back with more bias.

This has irked me about Fox for a while. But it really hit me when I found a site called Conservapedia. As you can probably guess, it's the answer to that evil liberal site Wikipedia. Aparently they feel Wikipedia is liberal, anti-American and anti-Christian. I read Wikipedia alot, and they I don't see any bias. This idea that conservatives have that if you are not with them, your against them is starting to get ridiculous.

well put. i get tired of many conservatives labeling anything that's not extremely far right as "liberal" or "un-american". "if you're not with us you're against us and we must use character assassination against you!!!" big babies...

Yeah he's going to be demoted to a talking head now. The show is just going to be a Hannity party. Oh noes :csad:

they probably just wanted to open the format up to allow hannity more time to ***** about the dems controlling the house, senate and white house. he'll need all the air-time he can get now. :yay:

[Marx]

I have yet to see a trailer on this movie and I watch a lot of t.v. You can say that all you want but it still brings me back to the point that if she didn't mention his sexual orientation how in the hell is that right wing bias?

I'm just spit balling here guys with the bad journalism because I've seen it before (just about everywhere) including Fox News with a video game incident awhile back. Maybe, just maybe, they didn't think it was important to mention because they didn't want it to distract people from seeing it because maybe it's a good movie? I don't know but you can't honestly sit there and say it's bias because I'm not sure bias is the right choice of words. Maybe a cover up but bias? I'm just not seeing it.

THE POINT REMAINS that Harvey Milk was a gay activist. The movie is about him. It would be the same thing as describing anything other movie and leaving out THE MAJOR POINT in the movie. :huh:

[The Senator]

THE WHOLE POINT OF THE FILM IS HARVEY MILK'S SEXUALITY!

That's why he was elected! That's why he was assassinated! He spent his whole career fighting against gay discrimination! To not mention Milk's sexuality would be equivalent to discussing the life of John Lewis and not mentioning he was black!

MEENGIA!

[The Senator]

unu-9vM9VZw

Sigh.

[Holiday]

I think the Fox News video is the equivalent to talking about The Express and not mentioning Ernie Banks was the first African-American Heisman Trophy winner. That's the point of the movie.

[Carcharodon]

THE WHOLE POINT OF THE FILM IS HARVEY MILK'S SEXUALITY!

That's why he was elected! That's why he was assassinated! He spent his whole career fighting against gay discrimination! To not mention Milk's sexuality would be equivalent to discussing the life of John Lewis and not mentioning he was black!

MEENGIA!Great, now I don't have to see the movie. :cmad:

[StorminNorman]

THE WHOLE POINT OF THE FILM IS HARVEY MILK'S SEXUALITY!

That's why he was elected! That's why he was assassinated! He spent his whole career fighting against gay discrimination! To not mention Milk's sexuality would be equivalent to discussing the life of John Lewis and not mentioning he was black!

MEENGIA!

On a slightly off topic note: I am confused as to how Milk's sexuality is responsible to his assassination. From what I have read of the incident Dan White was not fueled by hatred of gays (though he was obviously homophobic) but of depression of his life and his blaming those in local office.

[The Senator]

On a slightly off topic note: I am confused as to how Milk's sexuality is responsible to his assassination. From what I have read of the incident Dan White was not fueled by hatred of gays (though he was obviously homophobic) but of depression of his life and his blaming those in local office.

Milk played a part in White's downfall though, and he made some fairly suggestive comments about Milk's sexuality in the weeks before he assassinated him. I haven't really researched the assassination itself, but I know that White harbored a lot of animosity towards Milk for being the first openly gay politician.

[StorminNorman]

Milk played a part in White's downfall though, and he made some fairly suggestive comments about Milk's sexuality in the weeks before he assassinated him. I haven't really researched the assassination itself, but I know that White harbored a lot of animosity towards Milk for being the first openly gay politician.

And I understand all that and if Dan White targeted Milk alone, I wouldn't raise an eyebrow.

The problem is that Dan White's "hit list" included not only Milk, but other straight politicians (Mayor Moscone obviously, but also two other Supervisors he did not meet before being reprehended).

While, again, I won't deny that White probably had a problem with Milk's homosexuality - I see no evidence that Milk's sexuality led to his death.

Where I think Milk's sexuality DID come into play was the sentencing of White. While I think White probably did have a viable argument about his depression playing a role in his actions, I can't help but think that homophobia played a much larger role than any legal defense.

[Marx]

THE WHOLE POINT OF THE FILM IS HARVEY MILK'S SEXUALITY!

That's why he was elected! That's why he was assassinated! He spent his whole career fighting against gay discrimination! To not mention Milk's sexuality would be equivalent to discussing the life of John Lewis and not mentioning he was black!

MEENGIA!

Exactly.

[Paradyme]

THE WHOLE POINT OF THE FILM IS HARVEY MILK'S SEXUALITY!

That's why he was elected! That's why he was assassinated! He spent his whole career fighting against gay discrimination! To not mention Milk's sexuality would be equivalent to discussing the life of John Lewis and not mentioning he was black!

MEENGIA!

So, I'm happy we are going off topic. The question, which most of you seem to be avoiding is how is it right wing bias? She didn't mention he was gay. It's like forgetting to mention Bruce Wayne is Batman. Got it. So, one more time and I want to hear an explanation:

How does that make it right wing bias?

[C.F. Kane]

So, I'm happy we are going off topic. The question, which most of you seem to be avoiding is how is it right wing bias? She didn't mention he was gay. It's like forgetting to mention Bruce Wayne is Batman. Got it. So, one more time and I want to hear an explanation:

How does that make it right wing bias?

It's biased because it unfairly represents both the man and what the film is attempting to do for his legacy. Saying he was simply a "politician in the 70's" marginalizes him.

[Matt]

Milk played a part in White's downfall though, and he made some fairly suggestive comments about Milk's sexuality in the weeks before he assassinated him. I haven't really researched the assassination itself, but I know that White harbored a lot of animosity towards Milk for being the first openly gay politician.

And I understand all that and if Dan White targeted Milk alone, I wouldn't raise an eyebrow.

The problem is that Dan White's "hit list" included not only Milk, but other straight politicians (Mayor Moscone obviously, but also two other Supervisors he did not meet before being reprehended).

While, again, I won't deny that White probably had a problem with Milk's homosexuality - I see no evidence that Milk's sexuality led to his death.

Where I think Milk's sexuality DID come into play was the sentencing of White. While I think White probably did have a viable argument about his depression playing a role in his actions, I can't help but think that homophobia played a much larger role than any legal defense.

Norman is right. Milk's assassination was not based on his sexuality. In fact, White was quite civil towards him for some time and even political allies. During this time White was well aware that he was a homosexual and had no problem with it. But once they had a falling out over a zoning issue, White resigned in protest when the mayor backed Milk. White's supporters convinced him to ask the mayor to disregard his resignation and reappoint him, after the fact. At Milk's urging, Mayor Moscone refused and White shot him for that reason. White's motive had more to do with disillusionment over the political system and next to nothing to do with Milk's sexuality.

[bell110]

So basically, White was a nutcase.

[Oddzball]

I like Vonnegut myself and wouldn't call that a slanderous hit piece.

I can understand wanting a litte more higher praise for a him, but the 20th Century thing is a bit of reach. He was in fact one of the great writers of the 20th Century, why is that an insult?

Implicitly and at points more than implicitly the piece said Vonnegut's accomplishments were all well before his death.

[Addendum]

So basically, White was a nutcase.

Only a nutcase could think up the "twinkie defense"

[Matt]

So basically, White was a nutcase.

In a word, yes. But Jman is absolutely wrong that White shot Milk because Milk was gay. That had nothing to do with it. Now, as Norm pointed out, White's lenient sentence had everything to do with Milk's sexuality.

[StorminNorman]

Only a nutcase could think up the "twinkie defense"

The Twinkie Defense is one of the most misunderstood legal defenses in American Legal history.

White's legal argument had nothing to do with "Twinkies made me do it" but instead had everything to do with depression and desperation triggering a complete change in personality. Dan White, a former health nut, suddenly becoming addicting to junk food (twinkies) which made him go CRAZY! was not the defenses argument - only that this change (along with several other personality changes) demonstrated this change in mental health.

Personally I pity Dan White...or at least I pity him as much as I can a double murderer. He seemed like a good man whose life became absolutely butt garbage and lost sanity after he hit rock bottom.

That being said, however, I think his prison sentence is an absolute joke.

[Paradyme]

It's biased because it unfairly represents both the man and what the film is attempting to do for his legacy. Saying he was simply a "politician in the 70's" marginalizes him.

So, you feel its biased because they didn't mention that he was gay. To put it simply.

How does that make it right wing? I hope it's not because you are told Fox News is right wing.

[Matt]

The Twinkie Defense is one of the most misunderstood legal defenses in American Legal history.

White's legal argument had nothing to do with "Twinkies made me do it" but instead had everything to do with depression and desperation triggering a complete change in personality. Dan White, a former health nut, suddenly becoming addicting to junk food (twinkies) which made him go CRAZY! was not the defenses argument - only that this change (along with several other personality changes) demonstrated this change in mental health.

Personally I pity Dan White...or at least I pity him as much as I can a double murderer. He seemed like a good man whose life became absolutely butt garbage and lost sanity after he hit rock bottom.

That being said, however, I think his prison sentence is an absolute joke.

I'm not saying Milk deserved to be killed...not by any means...but Milk did go to very extreme lengths to destroy White's career. He does hold some responsibility in White going off the deep end, I think. Hardly a reason to kill a man, though. Run against him in the next election cycle, don't assassinate him.

Never-the-less, I agree about the sentencing. The fact that White got manslaughter is absurd. There was clearly premeditation as White brought the gun with him and only shot when the mayor refused to give him his job back. The fact that he then went and shot Milk too implies a great deal of malice. These two factors should knock manslaughter right off the table.

[The Senator]

Okay.

So White didn't assassinate Milk because he was gay.

To get back to the point, though, Milk received piles of death threats against him solely on the basis of his sexuality-- to a degree where Milk feared for his life almost every day he served in office. So, again, for FOX News to not mention his sexuality is equivalent to talking about John Lewis without mentioning he was black.

[Matt]

Perhaps, but its not like she gave a full review. She mentioned it in passing. They seemed to be talking more about the box office. I really doubt there was some conservative conspiracy to hide the fact that Harvey Milk is gay.

[Addendum]

Why should I pity someone who thought killing 2 people would solve his problems, instead of taking pro-active measures to fix them?

Like Matt said, run against Milk. If that didn't work, he could have started another career. Alan Berg went from a lawyer to starting a clothing store to talk show host.

[StorminNorman]

Why should I pity someone who thought killing 2 people would solve his problems, instead of taking pro-active measures to fix them?

Like Matt said, run against Milk. If that didn't work, he could have started another career. Alan Berg went from a lawyer to starting a clothing store to talk show host.

I never said you SHOULD pit Dan White - I just said that I personally pity him as much as I can a double murderer.

Milk did try other lines of work. He was a fireman, a policeman and a Vietnam Veteran. In fact White had to leave the former two jobs because it was illegal for a Supervisor. After resigning from his office, he opened a restaurant that failed and Milk helped success advocate against him being reappointed to his office.

Again, I think the guy deserved a long jail sentence, but he wasn't a monster.

Okay.

So White didn't assassinate Milk because he was gay.

To get back to the point, though, Milk received piles of death threats against him solely on the basis of his sexuality-- to a degree where Milk feared for his life almost every day he served in office. So, again, for FOX News to not mention his sexuality is equivalent to talking about John Lewis without mentioning he was black.

Perhaps, but its not like she gave a full review. She mentioned it in passing. They seemed to be talking more about the box office. I really doubt there was some conservative conspiracy to hide the fact that Harvey Milk is gay.

Exactly. This was a quick, irrelevant mentioning of a movie. Have you heard them similarly cover other films? The "review" is equally as brief and empty and occasionally just as wrong. Its not a "right wing conspiracy" its just a poor news segment.

If Fox News wanted to cover up Milk they would of just not mentioned it.

[Matt]

Why should I pity someone who thought killing 2 people would solve his problems, instead of taking pro-active measures to fix them?

Like Matt said, run against Milk. If that didn't work, he could have started another career. Alan Berg went from a lawyer to starting a clothing store to talk show host.

He wasn't right in the head, so I can see how one could pity him. Milk shouldn't have been so petty towards him. Milk made politics personal and went out of his way to destroy the man's life. Again, not saying Milk deserved it, but its easy to see how White could have a mental breakdown.

[BlackLantern]

I just saw a Fox News promo...basically striking the tone that change is scary....and the tagline was 'Stay With Us'....

[Marx]

I just saw a Fox News promo...basically striking the tone that change is scary....and the tagline was 'Stay With Us'....

:facepalm

[Addendum]

He wasn't right in the head, so I can see how one could pity him. Milk shouldn't have been so petty towards him. Milk made politics personal and went out of his way to destroy the man's life. Again, not saying Milk deserved it, but its easy to see how White could have a mental breakdown.

Milk didn't make things personal. White was the one who essentially said "screw you guys, I'm going home" but then tried to take it back. Then news broke about Jonestown, and everyone forgot about him.

[Matt]

Milk didn't make things personal. White was the one who essentially said "screw you guys, I'm going home" but then tried to take it back. Then news broke about Jonestown, and everyone forgot about him.

I dunno about that. Things got pretty damn dirty during the whole zoning debate between the two. Milk went pretty far to destroy the guy.

[Addendum]

And that's never happened before in politics?

http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/1889/southernchivalryog5.jpg

[Matt]

:hehe: I sort of wish things like that and challenging your opponent to duels were still legal in American politics.

But I'm not trying to justify White's actions. I am simply saying Milk pushed White. Of course, he could not have expected that White would push back the way he did. But the only reason I am saying that is to emphasize the point that White did NOT kill Milk due to his sexuality. He killed him because he was a mentally unstable man who percieved Milk as having wronged him.

[Addendum]

Brooks lacked the ability to effectively rebutt Sumner's speech against slavery. Plus, Brooks backed out of a duel years later that was to be held at Niagara Falls on the Canadian side

[Matt]

Surely you're not implying that politics would not be more fun with duels and beatings.

[BlackLantern]

:hehe: I sort of wish things like that and challenging your opponent to duels were still legal in American politics.

But I'm not trying to justify White's actions. I am simply saying Milk pushed White. Of course, he could not have expected that White would push back the way he did. But the only reason I am saying that is to emphasize the point that White did NOT kill Milk due to his sexuality. He killed him because he was a mentally unstable man who percieved Milk as having wronged him.

See...I did not know that....I just got learned by Matt....

[Paradyme]

Perhaps, but its not like she gave a full review. She mentioned it in passing. They seemed to be talking more about the box office. I really doubt there was some conservative conspiracy to hide the fact that Harvey Milk is gay.

Exactly.

[Matt]

See...I did not know that....I just got learned by Matt....

Most motives for assassination in history are broken down to the lowest common denominator. For example, Booth didn't kill Lincoln because he hated black people (which granted, he did, but so did Lincoln). He did it because he felt Lincoln completely trampled over state rights and the constitution in using the military to force states who had legally seceded to stay in the union and then afterwards ordering them on how to change their voting laws.

I haven't seen the movie (is it even out yet?)...nor do I really intend to. I dislike most bio-pics as they are usually grossly inaccurate and simply ignore the flaws of the main character's life to exaggerate their accomplishments, plus the topic matter doesn't interest me all that much. I know about Harvey Milk's life, I don't want to watch it for 2 hours and pay ten bucks to do so. Especially since the ending will depress me. But I must ask, does anyone know if it does portray White as some bigoted anti-homosexual zealot? I can't help but suspect that Van Sant did...which is such an inaccurate portrayl.

[Addendum]

Surely you're not implying that politics would not be more fun with duels and beatings.

WWF was fun when I was grade school.

[The Senator]

But I must ask, does anyone know if it does portray White as some bigoted anti-homosexual zealot? I can't help but suspect that Van Sant did...which is such an inaccurate portrayl.

Dan White was a bigoted anti-homosexual zealot though. He considered filing a motion to remove Harvey Milk from the San Francisco Board of Supervisors due to his sexuality (but refrained for political purposes), he adamantly supported the Briggs Initiative (which would have removed homosexuals from teaching or holding administrative positions in public schools), and had numerous confrontations with Milk over his sexuality. Dan White was not a misunderstood "compassionate conservative." He truly despised homosexuals and made several efforts during his career to promote that fact.

[Matt]

Dan White also did not kill Harvey Milk due to his sexuality and was not so bigoted that he could not work for him. In fact, the two worked civilly, side by side for many months and were even political allies until the zoning issue came up. My question is, does Van Sant portray White as killing Milk due to his sexuality?

[bell110]

Was Milk as hilariously flamboyant as Sean Penn portrays him?

[The Senator]

Dan White also did not kill Harvey Milk due to his sexuality and was not so bigoted that he could not work for him. In fact, the two worked civilly, side by side for many months and were even political allies until the zoning issue came up. My question is, does Van Sant portray White as killing Milk due to his sexuality?

I haven't seen the movie yet.

But that is aside from the point that White, in fact, was a bigot and that if he is portrayed as such in the film, it would be entirely accurate based on the three things which I mentioned above. He was a very complicated man, so I expect that the film will not be able to portray all aspects of his personality...

[The Senator]

Was Milk as hilariously flamboyant as Sean Penn portrays him?

Yes.

[Paradyme]

Dan White was a bigoted anti-homosexual zealot though. He considered filing a motion to remove Harvey Milk from the San Francisco Board of Supervisors due to his sexuality (but refrained for political purposes), he adamantly supported the Briggs Initiative (which would have removed homosexuals from teaching or holding administrative positions in public schools), and had numerous confrontations with Milk over his sexuality. Dan White was not a misunderstood "compassionate conservative." He truly despised homosexuals and made several efforts during his career to promote that fact.

And that's horrible. I'd like to point out that the only difference in policy that Milk would have over another politician is he supports gay rights. It in no way would it affect his decision making or should be thought that just because he is gay he can't do his job.

[Marx]

And that's horrible. I'd like to point out that the only difference in policy that Milk would have over another politician is that he OPENLY supported gay rights. It in no way would it affect his decision making or should be thought that just because he is gay he can't do his job.

Fixed.

[Paradyme]

Fixed.

Danke.

[Oddzball]

Only a nutcase could think up the "twinkie defense"

Excuse Moi, but White didn't think it up. White's Laywer did. And it WORKED. who's the nutcase? Not the shyster. He got his client off on very good terms.

[Oddzball]

:hehe: I sort of wish things like that and challenging your opponent to duels were still legal in American politics.

But I'm not trying to justify White's actions. I am simply saying Milk pushed White. Of course, he could not have expected that White would push back the way he did. But the only reason I am saying that is to emphasize the point that White did NOT kill Milk due to his sexuality. He killed him because he was a mentally unstable man who percieved Milk as having wronged him.

White bypassed a metal detector, shot Moscone dead by emptying his gun into the Mayor. HE BROUGHT EXTRA AMMO and used that to murder Milk.

Had he not killed Milk, but someone else, say if Milk were at a luncheon or something, I think he'd have been convicted of Murder 1. I think there was a good deal of Harvey hate if not Gay hate. Had victim number 2 been a janitor or receptionist, the twinkie defense would have failed.

[Addendum]

Excuse Moi, but White didn't think it up. White's Laywer did. And it WORKED. who's the nutcase?
White, his lawyer, and the jury

[StorminNorman]

Excuse Moi, but White didn't think it up. White's Laywer did. And it WORKED. who's the nutcase? Not the shyster. He got his client off on very good terms.

White, his lawyer, and the jury

Again, you guys apparently do not understand the fact that the "Twinkie Defense" is actually a very credible legal defense wrapped up in a name bred from ignorance.

[Addendum]

Just like there was equal ignorance that White didn't commit premeditated murder when he used a basement window to avoid metal detectors while entering City Hall with a gun specifically loaded with lethal ammunition, evaded the Mayor's bodyguards, reload his gun after killing the mayor, walk across City Hall to find and kill Milk.

And "diminished capacity" was removed by Prop 8 in June 1982 and the California legislature.

[BlackLantern]

sounds like something Sean Hannity would do

[StorminNorman]

Just like there was equal ignorance that White didn't commit premeditated murder when he used a basement window to avoid metal detectors while entering City Hall with a gun specifically loaded with lethal ammunition, evaded the Mayor's bodyguards, reload his gun after killing the mayor, walk across City Hall to find and kill Milk.

I never argued against premeditation - only that the Twinkie Defense is a valid legal argument.

And "diminished capacity" was removed by Prop 8 in June 1982 and the California legislature.

Which mean nothing at the time since it was 1979.

[Addendum]

I never argued against premeditation - only that the Twinkie Defense is a valid legal argument.

Valid doesn't equal respected.

But it doesn't matter since the ******* is dead

[Hobgoblin]

A little off topic, but still interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8Ong_LcKcM

[Paradyme]

A little off topic, but still interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8Ong_LcKcM

lol, I'm not gonna lie but that was pretty funny. Are we sure that isn't Frank Calliendo saying there was a link between Iraq and Al Qeada?

[Fading]

A little off topic, but still interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8Ong_LcKcM

Nah, it's an illusion. An independant study showed Fox is like the most balanced thing every /sarcasm. Heh, gotta love the digital age. It's getting damn near impossible for ppl to get away with lies anymore, well atleast for the ppl that care to look it up rather than just accept it. This thread alone has so many clips (most hilarious) of Fox's unbalanced nature it's undeniable.

Personally I wouldn't care if they weren't a news channel. If this was some late night opinion piece show on HBO, good for them on their opinion. It's just the thought of ppl actually listening to Fox and believing everything they say whole heartedly. Going to work and hearing ppl repeat Fox News headlines as if it was some unholy beacon of light.

[Kelly]

Ted Turner is going to be on O'Reilly tonight.....LMAO...................this should be entertaining.

[Kelly]

*sighs*

Well, it was a "light" interview......and not entertaining.....all they did was tell each other how great they are....................................*vomit*

[Marx]

*sighs*

Well, it was a "light" interview......and not entertaining.....all they did was tell each other how great they are....................................*vomit*

And that surprises you because..?

[Hobgoblin]

What do you guys think: Should the host have corrected his guest when she joked about killing Obama? Yes, she apologized later but the interviewer glazed over the comment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX-G6mxLuWQ

And her "apology"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLCCoD87l5E&feature=related

[Oddzball]

Again, you guys apparently do not understand the fact that the "Twinkie Defense" is actually a very credible legal defense wrapped up in a name bred from ignorance.

"You guys"??? Read what I wrote please. Your quote of me went:
Excuse Moi, but White didn't think it up. White's Laywer did. And it WORKED. who's the nutcase? Not the shyster. He got his client off on very good terms.

Now what part of these words remotely indicates I passed ANY judgement on the merits of the argument? For that matter remotely hints of one?

The word 'nutcase'? Go back to the original post. I'm replying to someone who used that word.

Now I realize you're a conservative and thus posting things that will come back to haunt you is pretty inevitable, but you should at least make an effort, but ah, payig closer attention to what you reply to.

Now, I'm probably going to give you a word you've never encountered before. I think it will aid you in the future if you understand it's meaning.

con⋅text   /ˈkɒnhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngtɛkst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) [kon-tekst] Show IPA Pronunciation http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html)

–noun 1.the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.

Hopefully this will help.

[Kelly]

And that surprises you because..?

Yeah, after what he did to a couple of senators Republican and Democratic over this bailout the other day, yeah............

[Kelly]

What do you guys think: Should the host have corrected his guest when she joked about killing Obama? Yes, she apologized later but the interviewer glazed over the comment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX-G6mxLuWQ

And her "apology"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLCCoD87l5E&feature=related


I saw that interview and yes he should have......

Had it been some of the other people on Fox, those that are during the week.....they would have said something more. That was a weekend show I believe, and he's an idiot, he did a good job following the voter fraud.....but he sucks as a host.

[BlackLantern]

so Hannity and Colmes is ending after 11 years...Colmes is leaving the show and will be a "guest commentator" and Hannity will have a "new show" in the same timeslot

[Kelly]

Yeah, they've been talking about this for years.....

I'm glad, IF THEY COULD GET, a liberal with a freaking backbone, and enough knowledge of the issues, that he/she could debate Hannity with facts rather than.......


"yeah, well Republicans did this....."


I would be a happy camper.....

[Superman]

Speaking of Fox News. Anyone know if this pic is real or a manip?

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/6671/d92ac367c2e150b99bbeb32uo4.jpg

:huh:

[Holiday]

It's fake.

[Superman]

It's fake.You have any proof or is that just your opinion?

Not saying you're wrong, But knowing Fox News and the things they have done in the past I'd just like alittle bit more than "It's fake".:yay:

[Kelly]

I watch Fox quite a bit, and I have never seen that.....


The only one I have ever heard talk about Obama's middle name was when they would have Ann Coulter on as a guest......and she did the same thing on NBC last week when she was interviewed.

Other than that, I've never seen much time spent on his middle name, or anything to do with Bin Laden....in fact, I've never heard of them speak of a connection as far as Bin Laden.

Hannity has talked about people's questioning of his religion....is he muslim, is he not.....but other than that a couple of times....not much else was shown.

[Holiday]

You have any proof or is that just your opinion?

Not saying you're wrong, But knowing Fox News and the things they have done in the past I'd just like alittle bit more than "It's fake".:yay:

http://www.cato.org/mediahighlights/index.php?highlight_id=36

[Kelly]

http://www.cato.org/mediahighlights/index.php?highlight_id=36


Damn Holiday, thumbs up to you........how the hell did you find that so fast.....

[Holiday]

I just googled "Obama/Biden Obama Bin Laden" and it was on the first page.

[Kelly]

aaaahaaaa.....so others have had the same discussion....lol

[Holiday]

Oh yeah, a lot of results came up for it. Which is sad but I can't really say I'm surprised. :oldrazz:

[Superman]

http://www.cato.org/mediahighlights/index.php?highlight_id=36That's good enough for me, Thank you. :up: :yay:

[BlackLantern]

with Hannity and Colmes gone....the show will now be called 'Hannity'...is this the new thing now? just name the show after the last name..."Huckabee", "Hannity", what's next "Satan"

[sinewave]

with Hannity and Colmes gone....the show will now be called 'Hannity'...is this the new thing now? just name the show after the last name..."Huckabee", "Hannity", what's next "Satan"

that's kind of redundant, don't you think?

[Kelly]

with Hannity and Colmes gone....the show will now be called 'Hannity'...is this the new thing now? just name the show after the last name..."Huckabee", "Hannity", what's next "Satan"

Only if Pelosi gets a show on Fox.......:oldrazz:

[BlackLantern]

I caught their late night show 'Red Eye' last night....it's quasi-entertaining

[BlackLantern]

that's kind of redundant, don't you think?

not really....Satan is probably a bit more reasonable

[sinewave]

that daily show ripoff got yanked off the air, didn't it? god that thing was awful....

[BlackLantern]

Yea the 1/2 Hour News Hour.....saw it once and the opening was Sean Hannity as President and Ann Coulter as Vice President attempting to do a skit.....

[sinewave]

Yea the 1/2 Hour News Hour.....saw it once and the opening was Sean Hannity as President and Ann Coulter as Vice President attempting to do a skit.....

i remember that! rush limbaugh was in it too, right?

[BlackLantern]

I think so

[Kelly]

I caught their late night show 'Red Eye' last night....it's quasi-entertaining


That sucker is rated "R" sometimes....lmao

[percoset]

While flipping through channels, I caught some of Hannity's new show. Its just ridiculous how hypocritical and ignorant he can be while getting paid millions and, according to Drudge, having nearly 3 million people watch him. I mean, its the same for both pundits working with MSNBC and FOX, but Hannity stands out in front.

Gag.

[Bathead]

I don't watch Fox anymore, as I don't have cable, what have they been like since the end of the election? Behaving themselves, or being themselves?

[C.F. Kane]

Just being themselves. Lately they've been playing up any scandal related to a Democrat, and occasionally making up scandals out of thin air.

[Marx]

Just being themselves. Lately they've been playing up any scandal related to a Democrat, and occasionally making up scandals out of thin air.

This shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone. They have to cling to anything that they can to remain somewhat relevent.

Wait a minute...

FOX News...relevent? :lmao:

[SuBe]

Just being themselves. Lately they've been playing up any scandal related to a Democrat, and occasionally making up scandals out of thin air.
Want to shed some light on what you are talking about, what Scandals are you referring to?

[gap5ewl]

Hasselback was on Hannity's show the other night and for a minutes, I thaught she was his no cohost since the image behind said "Hannity and Hasselback". *cringes*

[Hobgoblin]

Want to shed some light on what you are talking about, what Scandals are you referring to?

I dont know about Fox News but my co-worker is suspecious that Blagojevich got impeached after the election. He thinks Obama and Blagajevich were connected somehow. I told him maybe the FBI arrested Blago after the election because thats when they could make thier case. I'm sure thats the kind of scandal Fox is talking about.

[Hobgoblin]

Want to shed some light on what you are talking about, what Scandals are you referring to?

I dont know about Fox News but my co-worker is suspicious that Blagojevich got impeached after the election. He thinks Obama and Blagajevich were connected somehow. I told him maybe the FBI arrested Blago after the election because thats when they could make thier case. I'm sure thats the kind of scandal Fox is talking about.

[SuBe]

I dont know about Fox News but my co-worker is suspicious that Blagojevich got impeached after the election. He thinks Obama and Blagajevich were connected somehow. I told him maybe the FBI arrested Blago after the election because thats when they could make thier case. I'm sure thats the kind of scandal Fox is talking about.
Is Fox News really the only News Media Outlet that is following the Blago Case? How could they get him on Corruption Charges that involve selling Obama's Seat, if Obama didn't win the Election?

[BlackLantern]

one of Foxs promos right after the election was something like "The world is changing (while showing clips of riots, Bin Laden etc) Stay With Us...Fox News...Fair and Balanced"

[Sebastos]

FOX news is a joke. To hell with the network, I heard it's ratings were going down the drain. I will laugh in victory the day it disappears, whenever that day may be.....

[Kelly]

FOX news is a joke. To hell with the network, I heard it's ratings were going down the drain. I will laugh in victory the day it disappears, whenever that day may be.....


You may not like the network, and wish its death....but I'm not sure where you are getting your ratings information. Because most of its nightly shows are far ahead of the other cable nightly news shows.

[Sebastos]

You may not like the network, and wish its death....but I'm not sure where you are getting your ratings information. Because most of its nightly shows are far ahead of the other cable nightly news shows.

Where are you reading this?

[Kelly]

Where are you reading this?


I don't have a particular source, on the whole O'Reilly and Van Sustreen (sp?) have won their time slots as far as cable news ....

I know that there has been an ongoing ***** fight between Olberiman (again, horrible with spelling names...lol) and O'Reilly......I think they are in a back and forth at the moment on ratings....but I don't think Fox News is going anywhere....no matter how much many are praying for it...:cwink:

[Sebastos]

I don't have a particular source, on the whole O'Reilly and Van Sustreen (sp?) have won their time slots as far as cable news ....

I know that there has been an ongoing ***** fight between Olberiman (again, horrible with spelling names...lol) and O'Reilly......I think they are in a back and forth at the moment on ratings....but I don't think Fox News is going anywhere....no matter how much many are praying for it...:cwink:

Olbermann* :cwink:

Last time I checked though Keith said he was beating O'Reilly in the 8pm time slot. He even showed a paper with the numbers. At the end of the day O'Reilly's the pinhead and Hannity's paranoid thoughts about Obama have been pathetic.

[Kelly]

Olbermann* :cwink:

Last time I checked though Keith said he was beating O'Reilly in the 8pm time slot. He even showed a paper with the numbers. At the end of the day O'Reilly's the pinhead and Hannity's paranoid thoughts about Obama have been pathetic.


Thank you, I'm the worst at spelling names...:yay:

[Sebastos]

NP, we all make mistakes. :up:

[hippie_hunter]

FOX news is a joke. To hell with the network, I heard it's ratings were going down the drain. I will laugh in victory the day it disappears, whenever that day may be.....

I really don't get why people get so bothered by Fox News. I can't stand it as a news network, that and MSNBC, it's liberal twin brother, so I just simply ignore them and watch CNN. That way I don't have to listen to their biased ******** :o.

But I really don't see a problem with News Corporation filling a market for people who want conservatively biased news. Just like it isn't a problem when Turner Broadcasting System filled in the market for a 24-hour news network and when NBC Universal decided to have MSNBC mimick the Fox News model of opinion pundit based journalism.

[Kelly]

I don't like certain people on Fox....but I love Bill Hemmer and Meghan Kelly.......so I watch them when they are on.....which they are right now....*smiles*

[Midnyte_Sun]

I dont trust or like Cable News, unless they are covering a domestic story. Their international coverage is usually strewn with bias and censors and rarely is objective.

[StorminNorman]

Olbermann* :cwink:

Last time I checked though Keith said he was beating O'Reilly in the 8pm time slot. He even showed a paper with the numbers. At the end of the day O'Reilly's the pinhead and Hannity's paranoid thoughts about Obama have been pathetic.

This is funny because O'Reilly's audience is typically about 3:1 to Olbermann's.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/01/13/cable-news-ratings-for-monday-january-12/10776

Here is a comprehensive breakdown on the "battle"

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/01/16/oreilly-vs-olbermann-through-iethursday-january-15/11035

My first link actually shows that Fox News, who you claim's ratings are decreasing, have more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined.

[Nightwing]

I don't like certain people on Fox....but I love Bill Hemmer and Meghan Kelly.......so I watch them when they are on.....which they are right now....*smiles*
I also don't like a few on the network, particularly Hannity. How he wouldn't let go of the "Ayers" issue during the campaign was annoying. Everyone else was moving on about it and on to serious things, yet he was still fixated on it. It was almost like he was hell bent on proving that Obama/Ayers was something more than it originally was.

Still, FOX can have it's moments. But I wouldn't go as far as to always watching it. CNN or MSNBC usually go back and forth as far as the news channels I watch.

[Sebastos]

I really don't get why people get so bothered by Fox News. I can't stand it as a news network, that and MSNBC, it's liberal twin brother, so I just simply ignore them and watch CNN. That way I don't have to listen to their biased ******** :o.

You just answered your question, lol. It's because they ARE indeed biased, that's why it turns people off.

This is funny because O'Reilly's audience is typically about 3:1 to Olbermann's.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/01/13/cable-news-ratings-for-monday-january-12/10776

Here is a comprehensive breakdown on the "battle"

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/01/16/oreilly-vs-olbermann-through-iethursday-january-15/11035

My first link actually shows that Fox News, who you claim's ratings are decreasing, have more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined.

Blasphemy. :wow:

[StorminNorman]

You just answered your question, lol. It's because they ARE indeed biased, that's why it turns people off.

Your point would carry more weight if it wasn't the most successful Cable News Outlet, and by a huge margin.

[hippie_hunter]

You just answered your question, lol. It's because they ARE indeed biased, that's why it turns people off.

There's a difference between people like me who just simply ignore it and don't mind it as a result and people like you who get unnecessarily riled up about it and wish its demise for no true reason asides from the fact that it doesn't agree with your personal bias.

[Sebastos]

Your point would carry more weight if it wasn't the most successful Cable News Outlet, and by a huge margin.

I wasn't talking about it being successful, I see that. The point is, it's still biased.

[Marx]

I wasn't talking about it being successful, I see that. The point is, it's still biased.

Media bias isn't limited to one station, one paper, or one website. (As you have said yourself.)

[Sebastos]

There's a difference between people like me who just simply ignore it and don't mind it as a result and people like you who get unnecessarily riled up about it and wish its demise for no true reason asides from the fact that it doesn't agree with your personal bias.

Isn't that what opinions are for? I have an opinion about the network, plain and simple.

[Sebastos]

Media bias isn't limited to one station, one paper, or one website. (As you have said yourself.)

Like I didn't know that. It would be as if someone said CNN or MSNBC was bias. It goes all around, in this case i'm talking about FOX, which I think does a poor job despite it's ratings.

[hippie_hunter]

Isn't that what opinions are for? I have an opinion about the network, plain and simple.
But can you really complain about Fox News being biased simply because it doesn't suit your personal bias, not because of bias in general? It's kinda hypocritical if you ask me.

[Sebastos]

But can you really complain about Fox News being biased simply because it doesn't suit your personal bias, not because of bias in general? It's kinda hypocritical if you ask me.

....I am talking about it being bias in general.

[StorminNorman]

I wasn't talking about it being successful, I see that. The point is, it's still biased.
But you were talking about success. Your statement was that Fox's bias turns people off, that is a statement of success.

Fox News is less bias than MSNBC.

[Sebastos]

But you were talking about success. Your statement was that Fox's bias turns people off, that is a statement of success.

Fox News is less bias than MSNBC.

I don't disagree with that. :up:

We can go back and forth on the subject, but it'd also be saying that FOX people find CNN bias and it turns them off, that's why they watch FOX. I find FOX bias and it turns me off, so I watch CNN. That's all i'm saying.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I must say...I often watch Fox News to laugh at the absurd things said. Shock value n all. Limbaugh's crazy...sorta racially fueled, strangely, rant entertained me. Lots of liberals watch just to have comedy material too.

I doubt conservatives watch any of the stuff on MSNBC. Even Bill O ignores the hell outta them.

I don't know who to trust on ratings....bc EVERY network claims the crown. CNN does a ton of boasting.

Btw....the NSA has gotta be the top spook of the goverment after watching the whistle blower interview on Olbermann.

[StorminNorman]

I just provided the actual numbers for ratings, no Cable news company can claim its the most popular other than Fox. CNN can claim longest, but not most watched.

Also Limbaugh...isn't on Fox News.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Norm....you really think that Fox News is less biased than MSNBC?

I mean, every program from Fox and Friends to On the Record with Van Sustren has a tilt towards conservatism. Even Red Eye, which seems to air only at 3AM.

MSNBC has got Morning Joe which has a nice balance, more towards the right I think but just slightly. Other than the the nightime shows, Hardball with Matthews, 1600 with Shuster, Countdown with Olbermann and then Maddow...they're just barely left during the whole day and they've got nothing on the weekends.

I think Fox News just has more conservative comentary shows on the weekdays and weekends.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Yeah, but unlesswe follow every show all year...any network can claim anything bc hardly anyone checks. MSNBC seems like a small channel, they're not even in hd. I'm suprised about Fox pwning CNN thoug. CNN seems more center than either network.

And yeah, I know. I was referring to Limbaugh's 2 or 3 part interview on Hannity. Him wanting Obama to fail must anger O'Reily. It's unamerican, ya know.

[Handsome Rob]

Yeah, but unlesswe follow every show all year...any network can claim anything bc hardly anyone checks. MSNBC seems like a small channel, they're not even in hd. I'm suprised about Fox pwning CNN thoug. CNN seems more center than either network.

And yeah, I know. I was referring to Limbaugh's 2 or 3 part interview on Hannity. Him wanting Obama to fail must anger O'Reily. It's unamerican, ya know.

Limbaugh wants Pres. Obama to fail whenever he pushes policy that goes against Rush's conservative principles. He doesn't want Obama to fail regardless of what he does--there's a difference.

Would you want Pres. Bush to have succeeded in every single thing he did or attempted? Or, would you have found some of his actions antithetical to your political beliefs and rather those not to succeed? I opposed the financial bailouts, and I wanted those to fail. It doesn't mean that I wanted the Bush presidency to be a failure.

[Sebastos]

Norm....you really think that Fox News is less biased than MSNBC?

I mean, every program from Fox and Friends to On the Record with Van Sustren has a tilt towards conservatism. Even Red Eye, which seems to air only at 3AM.

MSNBC has got Morning Joe which has a nice balance, more towards the right I think but just slightly. Other than the the nightime shows, Hardball with Matthews, 1600 with Shuster, Countdown with Olbermann and then Maddow...they're just barely left during the whole day and they've got nothing on the weekends.

I think Fox News just has more conservative comentary shows on the weekdays and weekends.

Hell even Obama went to FOX to call them out on their ****. :o

[The Overlord]

But you were talking about success. Your statement was that Fox's bias turns people off, that is a statement of success.

Fox News is less bias than MSNBC.

Popularity does not equal quality, if it did Britney Spears would have been the best singer in the world in 2002.

[Kelly]

I'll agree that Fox and Friends is biased towards the right, but Greta Van Sustereen really doesn't show a bias either way. Most of her commentary is on legal matters. She was a defense attorney before and is very insightful in her commentary. As far as Hannity, I don't watch it....I like Huckabee, but that band on his show is ho rrid, so I don't watch it unless he has someone on I want to hear. O'Reilly's best interviews are with the most liberal of the liberal, so when he has those interviews, I'll watch. The news reporters themselves are very good, and I enjoy their reporting.
Fox Business News is doing more than all of the other news put together holding our government accountable for the TARP money, and I can't wait to see their suit go to trial.

CNN, is the same way for me, some I like, some I don't, but I watch it quite often....I watch CNN HN more than regular CNN though.....

NBC and MSNBC I cannot stomach. With Tim Russert's passing, there is no other reason for me to watch news on those stations.

As far as local coverage of the news, NBC is ok.....it's ABC that craps out as far as local news.

I love Bloomberg news, and NPR probably better than all the others put together.

[Sebastos]

Man I miss Tim.

[Kelly]

Oh, me too...........I missed him ALOT, during the last week.

[Sebastos]

He lived for this moment. It's really a shame...

[mclay18]

The news reporters themselves are very good, and I enjoy their reporting.

Even Shepard Smith?

I have to admit you have a point there. It's the way the network forces the reporters to take a mostly conservative stand. I still don't like O'Reilly -- although his little spat with Jenna Jameson was quite entertaining.

[Kelly]

Shepard Smith's reporting of Katrina gave me a strong repsect for him, so yes...

Really, they force them? Do you have a source where you have heard that?

[mclay18]

Really, they force them? Do you have a source where you have heard that?

Oh, I don't know. Rupert Murdoch owns the network, so it's likely he has some leeway into what news can be reported and such.

I mean, some news reporters absolutely refuse to make news announcements that aren't relevant (and what the heads of the station deem "hot"). There was a big news story about a NBC anchor who refused on-air to report Paris Hilton's arrest (she shredded the report and refused to read the copies that came her way) -- we even talked about it in one of my mass com courses.

[Kelly]

Oh, I don't know. Rupert Murdoch owns the network, so it's likely he has some leeway into what news can be reported and such.

I mean, some news reporters absolutely refuse to make news announcements that aren't relevant (and what the heads of the station deem "hot"). There was a big news story about a NBC anchor who refused on-air to report Paris Hilton's arrest (she shredded the report and refused to read the copies that came her way) -- we even talked about it in one of my mass com courses.

You said "are they forced" I said, no. What you are saying up there that reporters "have refused".....so apparently they are not forced.

I remember one of the people on the Fox morning show, walked off the set, because he disagreed with the others on their conservative slant.

To me, there is a difference between reporting the news, and commentary on the news. I look at both differently, and listen to both differently.

"I cried tears of joy when Obama took the oath...." in a commentary, is not that big of a deal for me....but from someone "reporting" the news, it does.

"Today is a day of history making proportions...." from a reporter, would have sufficed.

Pundit

[Kelly]

Oh, I don't know. Rupert Murdoch owns the network, so it's likely he has some leeway into what news can be reported and such.

I mean, some news reporters absolutely refuse to make news announcements that aren't relevant (and what the heads of the station deem "hot"). There was a big news story about a NBC anchor who refused on-air to report Paris Hilton's arrest (she shredded the report and refused to read the copies that came her way) -- we even talked about it in one of my mass com courses.

You said "are they forced" I said, no. What you are saying up there that reporters "have refused".....so apparently they are not forced.

I remember one of the people on the Fox morning show, walked off the set, because he disagreed with the others on their conservative slant. It wasn't a big deal for anyone except, OTHER cable news networks...

To me, there is a difference between reporting the news, and commentary on the news. I look at both differently, and listen to both differently.

"I cried tears of joy when Obama took the oath...." in a commentary, is not that big of a deal for me....but from someone "reporting" the news, it does.

"Today is a day of history making proportions...." from a reporter, would have sufficed.

I like the fact that Cavuto does not allow the "Hannity vs. Colmes" style of debate on his show.....I have respect for that....I don't necessarily agree with his thoughts sometimes, but I respect how he runs his show, even when he comes off as an ******* sometimes.......sometimes you have to to get people to stop the whining, and just answer the damn question...

[StorminNorman]

Even Shepard Smith?

I have to admit you have a point there. It's the way the network forces the reporters to take a mostly conservative stand. I still don't like O'Reilly -- although his little spat with Jenna Jameson was quite entertaining.

Shepard Smith is one of the best reporters in the news today, period. The guy called out and based his producers for putting together and interview with a cult leader on air as it happened.

[chaseter]

Shepard Smith's reporting of Katrina gave me a strong repsect for him, so yes...

Really, they force them? Do you have a source where you have heard that?
Shepard is a good guy IMO and one of the few shows I watch for politics besides Colbert and Stewart because he isn't overly biased. God I just hate Keith Olberman, the mannish looking Rachel Maddows, the idiot Sean Hannity, and the hypocrite Bill O'reiley.

I'll agree that Fox and Friends is biased towards the right, but Greta Van Sustereen really doesn't show a bias either way. Most of her commentary is on legal matters. She was a defense attorney before and is very insightful in her commentary. As far as Hannity, I don't watch it....I like Huckabee, but that band on his show is ho rrid, so I don't watch it unless he has someone on I want to hear. O'Reilly's best interviews are with the most liberal of the liberal, so when he has those interviews, I'll watch. The news reporters themselves are very good, and I enjoy their reporting.
Fox Business News is doing more than all of the other news put together holding our government accountable for the TARP money, and I can't wait to see their suit go to trial.
Greta is alright as well but who she interviews is laughable most of the time. I don't know if she chooses her stories or if they are chosen for her but her daily Sarah Palin interviews were annoying as hell.

Huckabee's show format is stupid and the whole idea behind it is stupid. It is a horrible show.

[Sebastos]

The fact they even gave him a show is stupid.

[C.F. Kane]

Shepard is a good guy IMO and one of the few shows I watch for politics besides Colbert and Stewart because he isn't overly biased. God I just hate Keith Olberman, the mannish looking Rachel Maddows, the idiot Sean Hannity, and the hypocrite Bill O'reiley.


Greta is alright as well but who she interviews is laughable most of the time. I don't know if she chooses her stories or if they are chosen for her but her daily Sarah Palin interviews were annoying as hell.

Huckabee's show format is stupid and the whole idea behind it is stupid. It is a horrible show.

I hope you have a better reason for disliking Maddows than her "mannish" look.

[Sebastos]

I remember when Shep was in Haiti. :lmao:

[Kelly]

I've watched Rachel Maddows show a few times. Far too left for me....but it was ok.

[Sebastos]

Edit. :o

[Sebastos]

Rachel is alright...

[CelticPredator]

Bill is awful man. He reminds me of this kid I know. A bully at heart. Worthless scum. I hate people like him.

She isnt Fox news, but Nancy Grace sucks too....oh and **** Ann Coulter and Hannity. Who the **** does he think he is telling Arnold he's turning left because he wants to save the plant...

If I had my say, MSNBC, and FOX would go off the air, and be replaced with a no bais news channel....maybe a commentary show here and there...but still.

[Kelly]

Bill is awful man. He reminds me of this kid I know. A bully at heart. Worthless scum. I hate people like him.

She isnt Fox news, but Nancy Grace sucks too....oh and **** Ann Coulter and Hannity. Who the **** does he think he is telling Arnold he's turning left because he wants to save the plant...

If I had my say, MSNBC, and FOX would go off the air, and be replaced with a no bais news channel....maybe a commentary show here and there...but still.

marijuana?

[CelticPredator]

Uh.....yeah sure...:funny:

[chaseter]

I hope you have a better reason for disliking Maddows than her "mannish" look.
The fact that her entire show is a Bush hate gimmick. The fact that she is overly biased that it is funny yet sad all in one. The fact that she thinks her witty, satirical, and sarcastic verbose rants are viable political and witty commentary is utterly false. She is just as stupid as Sean Hannity and if they were to debate...their constant arguing of circles would force the moderator and the audience to kill themselves. They even both have that dumb smirk that they do after they deliver an idiotic, biased point. Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddows are garbage political commentators and only have a show because there are idiots out there that follow their same political frame of mind and that is the reason this country is in shambles. Neither of them are right:o and neither deserves their own show:o

[chamber-music]

Anyone see charlie brooker's screenwipe?
Its a tv satire show and brooker really lays into Fox News war reporters its hilarious

can't really post the link because of the bad langague but type charlie brookers screenwipe 2008 review in youtube. The Fox part is in part 2 about 5mins in.

[sinewave]

The fact that her entire show is a Bush hate gimmick. The fact that she is overly biased that it is funny yet sad all in one. The fact that she thinks her witty, satirical, and sarcastic verbose rants are viable political and witty commentary is utterly false. She is just as stupid as Sean Hannity and if they were to debate...their constant arguing of circles would force the moderator and the audience to kill themselves. They even both have that dumb smirk that they do after they deliver an idiotic, biased point. Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddows are garbage political commentators and only have a show because there are idiots out there that follow their same political frame of mind and that is the reason this country is in shambles. Neither of them are right:o and neither deserves their own show:o

she's a rhodes scholar. you may not agree with her views, but she's still very intelligent and articulate. i'm not so sure the same can be said for hannity.

[Nitehawk013]

Right. So she is an eductaed buffoon. Hannity on the other hand spent a good chunk of his life as part of the real working class before getting his breaks in radio. He is far too easy on the GOP most of the time, but I'll take his GOP water carrying to Maddow's "everythign wrong in the universe if Bush's fault" mantra.

[sinewave]

Right. So she is an eductaed buffoon. Hannity on the other hand spent a good chunk of his life as part of the real working class before getting his breaks in radio. He is far too easy on the GOP most of the time, but I'll take his GOP water carrying to Maddow's "everythign wrong in the universe if Bush's fault" mantra.

what does that even mean or have to do with the subject? does that prove he's more qualified to voice his opinion on politics than someone who's spent the better part of their life studying them and getting prestigious degrees from those studies?

[Kelly]

I would say that someone in the workworld would be more in touch with the common person, more than someone who spent much of their life as an academic. BUT, doesn't make me agree with their opinion more over the other....

[sinewave]

I would say that someone in the workworld would be more in touch with the common person, more than someone who spent much of their life as an academic. BUT, doesn't make me agree with their opinion more over the other....

i'm just trying to get him to admit he only prefers hannity because they share the same ideology. besides, he did say she's just as stupid as hannity, which doesn't appear to be true, if you look at their academic achievements.

[Kelly]

i'm just trying to get him to admit he only prefers hannity because they share the same ideology. besides, he did say she's just as stupid as hannity, which doesn't appear to be true, if you look at their academic achievements.

Well, I don't necessarily equate academic achievements with intelligence. I know of several professors that have achievements running out their ears....but honestly they are dumb as posts.

Their academic achievements will not change my opinion of the....the policy they push, will.

They are both too far to either end of the spectrum for my taste.

[Nitehawk013]

I'm not hiding anything. i do like Hannity more than Maddow bc we do share a lot of the same ideology.

It doesn't change the fact that he, like Kel said, understands the real world more than some twit who spent her life being brainwashed in colleges to the "Liberlaism is good" hogwash.

[Kelly]

I'm not hiding anything. i do like Hannity more than Maddow bc we do share a lot of the same ideology.

It doesn't change the fact that he, like Kel said, understands the real world more than some twit who spent her life being brainwashed in colleges to the "Liberlaism is good" hogwash.

Whoa, don't quote me with that kind dribble....


Chill out.....

[sinewave]

Well, I don't necessarily equate academic achievements with intelligence. I know of several professors that have achievements running out their ears....but honestly they are dumb as posts.

Their academic achievements will not change my opinion of the....the policy they push, will.

They are both too far to either end of the spectrum for my taste.

i feel the same way. there's raw intelligence and there's education. still, between the two i'm guessing she's got a better working knowledge of politics, and of the world, than hannity, despite what kind of "workingman's insight" he might have.

I'm not hiding anything. i do like Hannity more than Maddow bc we do share a lot of the same ideology.

It doesn't change the fact that he, like Kel said, understands the real world more than some twit who spent her life being brainwashed in colleges to the "Liberlaism is good" hogwash.

uh huh.... sounds like there's braingwashing going on on both sides of the aisle, just going off your statement here.

[Addendum]

So it's only brainwashing if it's something you don't agree with

[sinewave]

So it's only brainwashing if it's something you don't agree with

no, if it's a ridiculous sounding opinion that i've heard from countless others from the same political ideology with no basis for it, then that's what i'd consider brainwashing. but hey, i could be wrong.

[Addendum]

I meant it more for Nitehawk, since he tosses "brainwashing" around all casually.

I just wonder what happened in his childhood to make a political ideology take the place of a toddler's favorite stuffed animal

[sinewave]

I meant it more for Nitehawk, since he tosses "brainwashing" around all casually.

I just wonder what happened in his childhood to make a political ideology take the place of a toddler's favorite stuffed animal

as do i. there seems to be a lot of genuine anger aimed at the left from him

[Addendum]

The left told him when he was 3 for the good of the community that he couldn't have a doggie, but he could have a kitty. That 3 year swore off kitties by said they were dumb and goofy looking. Thus began his path on the right.

[Nitehawk013]

The left is an afront, IMO, to everythign that is good, decent and moral.

[sinewave]

The left told him when he was 3 for the good of the community that he couldn't have a doggie, but he could have a kitty. That 3 year swore off kitties by said they were dumb and goofy looking. Thus began his path on the right.

and on cue....

The left is an afront, IMO, to everythign that is good, decent and moral.

thanks. we love you too. :cwink:

[Addendum]

The same can be said of the right. That's why I only go right or left when I'm driving.

[Nitehawk013]

We have vastly different definitions of good decnt and moral apparently then.

[sinewave]

We have vastly different definitions of good decnt and moral apparently then.

i'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you probably have vastly different definitions of a lot of things than most of us. :o

[Addendum]

Neither ideology has a monopoly of "goodness, decency, and morality". And in politics, "goodness, decency, and morality" is something that's only done during election years to get votes, as evidenced by the long list of politicians involved in scandal. That list just isn't limited to this nation. It includes those of other countries and goes back to when mankind got the brilliant idea of creating a government.

[danoyse]

The left is an afront, IMO, to everythign that is good, decent and moral.

That's not true, and the continuous flaming of the left needs to stop.

Disgree with idealogies all you want, but try to be a little bit more constructive about it.

[sinewave]

That's not true, and the continuous flaming of the left needs to stop.

Disgree with idealogies all you want, but try to be a little bit more constructive about it.

it sounds like our young mr. nitehawk could use a bit of perspective in his life. i get the feeling he's not able to humanize anyone who doesn't agree with his specific ideology.

[chaseter]

she's a rhodes scholar. you may not agree with her views, but she's still very intelligent and articulate. i'm not so sure the same can be said for hannity.
So because she has an education she is automatically right:huh: I think one or two of you seem to remain blind on the fact that Hannity and Maddows are both biased, extremist, and partisan political tv jockeys that skew news to both sides of their political spectrum. I don't think either of them deserve to be defended because of their past. We were talking about non-biased and respectable news anchors that we all can respect to deliver good political news. If someone thinks that Maddows or Hannity is a place to go to get their news then I am sorry...really really sorry:o

[Bathead]

We have vastly different definitions of good decnt and moral apparently then.

Remember what the bible says, Nitehawk -

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

Or am I mistaken and you don't believe in the bible?

[Carcharodon]

The left is an afront, IMO, to everythign that is good, decent and moral.Apparently being able to spell relatively simple words must be a liberal ideology...which, obviously, you steer clear of. :up:

Keep up the good fight.

[sinewave]

So because she has an education she is automatically right:huh: I think one or two of you seem to remain blind on the fact that Hannity and Maddows are both biased, extremist, and partisan political tv jockeys that skew news to both sides of their political spectrum. I don't think either of them deserve to be defended because of their past. We were talking about non-biased and respectable news anchors that we all can respect to deliver good political news. If someone thinks that Maddows or Hannity is a place to go to get their news then I am sorry...really really sorry:o

read whatever you want into it. i just stated the facts. she's more informed on any number of topics than hannity, due to her education. i still don't get the anti-intellectualism in this country, not that i'm accusing you of that.

[Handsome Rob]

I don't give someone automatic credit for being more intelligent than another simply based on the level of education one has achieved. I see more wisdom in what one says rather than where one happened to go to school. As Kel said, there are plenty of less-than-intelligent professors out there. As far as I can tell, both Hannity and Maddow are intelligent people. I would say that Hannity has more wisdom, because he and I are in agreement more than Maddow and I are. And, don't we usually perceive people to be wiser when they make statements or hold beliefs that we agree with?

[Superman]

read whatever you want into it. i just stated the facts. she's more informed on any number of topics than hannity, due to her education. i still don't get the anti-intellectualism in this country, not that i'm accusing you of that.You and me both, Since when did being smart become a bad thing?:whatever:

[Handsome Rob]

read whatever you want into it. i just stated the facts. she's more informed on any number of topics than hannity, due to her education. i still don't get the anti-intellectualism in this country, not that i'm accusing you of that.

I would see anti-intellectualism as more of a rebellion against learning and continual education rather than a bias against someone who has not had the same "official" level of education as another.

[chaseter]

read whatever you want into it. i just stated the facts. she's more informed on any number of topics than hannity, due to her education. i still don't get the anti-intellectualism in this country, not that i'm accusing you of that.
Do you think Rachel Maddows is a non-biased, fair, and accurate political source of news? Yes or No? Does her journalism help you make political decisions?

A lot of people are very brilliant, educated individuals. Does that automatically make their opinions correct:huh: Would you rather have a surgeon operating on your heart that has had 20 years in the field or a surgeon that has 20 years of text book learning? I am not defending anybody...but your defending of Maddows is simply perplexing to me. People like her and Hannity are the reason that this country will continue to remain in shambles because bipartisanship will not happen.

[Addendum]

All surgeons as well as any other doctor, have had "book learning". It's called med school. Along side that, they intern at hospitals to learn more. However, even a doctor that has practiced for 20 years after med school can **** up.

[chaseter]

All surgeons as well as any other doctor, have had "book learning". It's called med school. Along side that, they intern at hospitals to learn more. However, even a doctor that has practiced for 20 years after med school can **** up.
It's called an analogy.

[Sebastos]

I would see anti-intellectualism as more of a rebellion against learning and continual education rather than a bias against someone who has not had the same "official" level of education as another.

Quoted for truth. There's so much to learn and read out there. :hehe:

[C.F. Kane]

It's called an analogy.

It's called a weak analogy.

Op-ed commentators aren't surgeons. A surgeon does indeed need plenty of field experience in order to be effective. It's largely action and quick thinking. however, a pundit like Maddows or Hannity works entirely in analysis, studying information extensively before coming to a conclusion. For someone in that situation, I'd much rather listen to the person who has taken the time to study the facts, instead of someone who acts like its a life and death situation and jumps to the quickest solution.

[sinewave]

I don't give someone automatic credit for being more intelligent than another simply based on the level of education one has achieved. I see more wisdom in what one says rather than where one happened to go to school. As Kel said, there are plenty of less-than-intelligent professors out there. As far as I can tell, both Hannity and Maddow are intelligent people. I would say that Hannity has more wisdom, because he and I are in agreement more than Maddow and I are. And, don't we usually perceive people to be wiser when they make statements or hold beliefs that we agree with?

if you're talking about knowledge on a specific topic, i'll take someone who's got a doctorate in that field of study over someone who's a two-time college drop-out and an obnoxious, on-air sensationalist.

You and me both, Since when did being smart become a bad thing?:whatever:

when the GOP realized they could capitalize on ignorant redneck voters with inferiority complexes, i guess.

I would see anti-intellectualism as more of a rebellion against learning and continual education rather than a bias against someone who has not had the same "official" level of education as another.

this is the comment i was responding to:

It doesn't change the fact that he, like Kel said, understands the real world more than some twit who spent her life being brainwashed in colleges to the "Liberlaism is good" hogwash.

it sure sounds like anti-intellectualism to me.

Do you think Rachel Maddows is a non-biased, fair, and accurate political source of news? Yes or No? Does her journalism help you make political decisions?

A lot of people are very brilliant, educated individuals. Does that automatically make their opinions correct:huh: Would you rather have a surgeon operating on your heart that has had 20 years in the field or a surgeon that has 20 years of text book learning? I am not defending anybody...but your defending of Maddows is simply perplexing to me. People like her and Hannity are the reason that this country will continue to remain in shambles because bipartisanship will not happen.

you sound really wound up, dude. to answer your questions, i find maddow to be very liberal and yes, i factor in everything i watch, read and hear about politics and make up my own mind, but honestly, i've only seen her show once or twice, but i have seen her appear several times on a few msnbc shows as a commentator.

i never said she was right in every situation, but in regards to her being "just as stupid as sean hannity", yeah, i have a hard time believing that. she's certainly more informed and educated on the subject of politics than him. i don't care which ideology you subscribe to, smart is smart.

[Kelly]

So you would listen to Phil Gramm before you listened to Maddows on the subject of the economy?

[chaseter]

I am not wound up...I just cannot believe people actual defend such a politically biased hate monger because of their beginning or educational background. President Bush had an Ivy League education and people call him an idiot. He also had years and years of political experience with his Governorships and various offices and even grew up in a political family. In theory, he should have been a great president.

Rachel Maddows is intelligent...no one said other wise. Next time I have a political paper to write...I will be sure to bone up on my lacking knowledge of Lame Ducks. Once again, we were talking about good news commentators that bring forth excellent, unbiased, and fair political commentary and don't purposely lean to one side to bash the other on network television.

[Kelly]

Government offices?????

[chaseter]

It's called a weak analogy.

Op-ed commentators aren't surgeons. A surgeon does indeed need plenty of field experience in order to be effective. It's largely action and quick thinking. however, a pundit like Maddows or Hannity works entirely in analysis, studying information extensively before coming to a conclusion. For someone in that situation, I'd much rather listen to the person who has taken the time to study the facts, instead of someone who acts like its a life and death situation and jumps to the quickest solution.
ORLY:wow: You just backed up my analogy:huh:

[chaseter]

Government offices?????
I don't remember or care to look up his various offices he once held. Too lazy:o:woot:

[sinewave]

So you would listen to Phil Gramm before you listened to Maddows on the subject of the economy?

economically? i wouldn't trust either of them. politically, i'd trust the one who sounded more logical and had the chops to back it up. however, this discussion started with hannity and maddow. it's getting a bit off track.

[Kelly]

economically? i wouldn't trust either of them. politically, i'd trust the one who sounded more logical and had the chops to back it up. however, this discussion started with hannity and maddow. it's getting a bit off track.


if you're talking about knowledge on a specific topic, i'll take someone who's got a doctorate in that field of study over someone who's a two-time college drop-out and an obnoxious, on-air sensationalist.


Gramm received his doctorate in economics from the University of Georgia in 1967.

I guess I misunderstood you....

[Kelly]

I don't remember or care to look up his various offices he once held. Too lazy:o:woot:


He ran, and lost in 1977 for the US House of Represenatives.....he held no other political office until he ran for governor of Texas....

[hippie_hunter]

I'd like to add that I don't like Maddow either. Too damn biased and I'll admit, I'm incredibly shallow when it comes to how she looks.

And to avoid the argument, yes, I'm a horrible person.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I love Maddow.

I have no problem with ppl being biased.

Its not the news. Its commentary.

My only real knock on Fox News is they CLAIM to be fair and balanced. They're just insulting us by thinking w'll buy it.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

she's a rhodes scholar. you may not agree with her views, but she's still very intelligent and articulate. i'm not so sure the same can be said for hannity.


She's pretty respectful though. Even when she's got a...'hostile' guest, she's pretty academic with that guest.

Hannity would either shout that person down or have they're mic cut off.

I think being an ******* should count for something...


Right. So she is an eductaed buffoon. Hannity on the other hand spent a good chunk of his life as part of the real working class before getting his breaks in radio. He is far too easy on the GOP most of the time, but I'll take his GOP water carrying to Maddow's "everythign wrong in the universe if Bush's fault" mantra.


....okay......


Limbaugh wants Pres. Obama to fail whenever he pushes policy that goes against Rush's conservative principles. He doesn't want Obama to fail regardless of what he does--there's a difference.



You're being too kind.

He outright said he wants him to fail, because then socialism would fail. He was nowhere near as specific as you're being, which would have been a step in the right direction.

He just wants an epic fail. Which, by Bill O'Reily's standards...makes Rush unAmerican.

Crazy, I know.

Would you want Pres. Bush to have succeeded in every single thing he did or attempted? Or, would you have found some of his actions antithetical to your political beliefs and rather those not to succeed? I opposed the financial bailouts, and I wanted those to fail. It doesn't mean that I wanted the Bush presidency to be a failure.

I would have liked him to have succeeded overall, yes.

Because if the President succeeds...guess what? The country does.

Yes, I would have liked for his presidency to have been a sucess because we as a country would have ridden that wave as well.

Shepard Smith's reporting of Katrina gave me a strong repsect for him, so yes...

I like Shep alot too. I think he's pretty damn fair on his reporting.

I hope you have a better reason for disliking Maddows than her "mannish" look.

He means her Dike look, I'm sure.

Which I kinda find charming in a Tomboy kinda way.

[Kelly]

I love Maddow.

I have no problem with ppl being biased.

Its not the news. Its commentary.

My only real knock on Fox News is they CLAIM to be fair and balanced. They're just insulting us by thinking w'll buy it.

In commentary of course there is bias, and even though I dont "love" Maddow, I do find some of her shows interesting, as I do O'Reilly, Beck, and many others....

I don't see that many "commentary" shows on CNBC, or CNN that are "conservative" commentary....as I don't see many "liberal" commentary shows on FNC....but I think both as far as their reporting of the news is fine.....

So I watch both....as for NBC, sorry that is the most biased NEWS on television today.....IMO, and therefore gets none of my time.

[SuBe]

In commentary of course there is bias, and even though I dont "love" Maddow, I do find some of her shows interesting, as I do O'Reilly, Beck, and many others....

I don't see that many "commentary" shows on CNBC, or CNN that are "conservative" commentary....as I don't see many "liberal" commentary shows on FNC....but I think both as far as their reporting of the news is fine.....

So I watch both....as for NBC, sorry that is the most biased NEWS on television today.....IMO, and therefore gets none of my time.
Fox News used to have Colmes, but he retired or something. But every day on at 6 PM they have a Group Panel and always have Mort Kondrake (sp?) or Juan Williams among others that are liberal. On Fox and Friends this morning, as they do every morning, had a news story about Schools not teaching Cursive anymore, and they had 2 people on there, showing both sides of the issue.

I think, just as many out there, that on the commentary shows, they always give both sides of the issue. On the News programing, like Shepard Smith or Eric Shawn, they are always unbiased.

There is a difference between News and Commentary, and I think there are a lot of people on this forum that really can't tell the difference.

[Nitehawk013]

^ Exactly.

[C.F. Kane]

ORLY:wow: You just backed up my analogy:huh:

No.

In your analogy, you would prefer a surgeon who has had more "field training" than "book learning".

What's field training for a pundit in this analogy? Screen time?

[chaseter]

There is a difference between News and Commentary, and I think there are a lot of people on this forum that really can't tell the difference.
People know the difference between commentary and news but biased commentary is what tears this country apart because they breed polar opposites of one another that make petty attacks to either side constantly. There are good commentary shows and then there are biased commentary shows of which the latter is far more prevalent in today's media because it sells. It is funny to see one issue occurring and if it was from a Democrat, the commentators on MSNBC defend it and the commentators on Fox attack it and vice versa. People are entitled to their opinions but to have an entire network full of the same minded people spouting the same commentary through out the day to fill time slots is stupid and all it does is breed intolerance between the two parties.

Look at what was born out of these people: The Daily Show and the Colbert Report...satirical commentary poking fun of the biased commentators. That is why they are the most watched news program for people 18-25 because they don't fill their entire show with forceful biased political dribble and attacks, they satire it. Why can't there be a network with a few commentators from each political view point? Why does their have to be a network full of right wing conservatives vs a network full of left wing liberals?

I felt bad for Shephard Smith yesterday as he filled his entire show with live coverage of a car chase:csad: Because 90 minutes of that enlightened me:whatever: Rachel Maddows is smart indeed. But, her strong left view point mixed with her sarcastic undertones are just annoying to me. She keeps that smug smirk on her face and she acts as if she is right just as much as Sean Hannity annoys the **** out of me and does the same.

[SuBe]

People know the difference between commentary and news but biased commentary is what tears this country apart because they breed polar opposites of one another that make petty attacks to either side constantly. There are good commentary shows and then there are biased commentary shows of which the latter is far more prevalent in today's media because it sells. It is funny to see one issue occurring and if it was from a Democrat, the commentators on MSNBC defend it and the commentators on Fox attack it and vice versa. People are entitled to their opinions but to have an entire network full of the same minded people spouting the same commentary through out the day to fill time slots is stupid and all it does is breed intolerance between the two parties.

Look at what was born out of these people: The Daily Show and the Colbert Report...satirical commentary poking fun of the biased commentators. That is why they are the most watched news program for people 18-25 because they don't fill their entire show with forceful biased political dribble and attacks, they satire it. Why can't there be a network with a few commentators from each political view point? Why does their have to be a network full of right wing conservatives vs a network full of left wing liberals?

I felt bad for Shephard Smith yesterday as he filled his entire show with live coverage of a car chase:csad: Because 90 minutes of that enlightened me:whatever: Rachel Maddows is smart indeed. But, her strong left view point mixed with her sarcastic undertones are just annoying to me. She keeps that smug smirk on her face and she acts as if she is right just as much as Sean Hannity annoys the **** out of me and does the same.
I agree with a lot of this, but I don't think that because Daily Show is a Satire that this is the Reason that they are more watched in the 18-25 Demo. I think they are more watched is because of the General Ignorance OF that Demographic.

The Policital Ideological Divide between the Left and the Right and the Commentators that suppport either side isn't a new agrument. Look at Plato, John Locke, Adam Smith, Frederic Bastiat, Karl Marx, and many others. There has always been Commentators on either Side. Just the Fact that they are on Television is somewhat new. And by New, I mean in the Last 50 Years. There is nothing wrong with Commentators, it is the Reporters that hold back the news to fulfil their Adgenda, they are worse.

Also, Shepard Smith's show is a NEWS Program, it is not supposed to enlighten you, it's supposed to tell you the news.

[chaseter]

Smith discusses things...I see news as someone who just reads the headlines and then moves on without going into any detail of its political background. He just isn't heavy handed with the commentary like others. I guess I would agree he is more middle road between news and commentary.

But my point still stands that the problems these biased political commentators cause on the average voter looking for answers is immense in further dividing this country.

[Kelly]

Fox News used to have Colmes, but he retired or something. But every day on at 6 PM they have a Group Panel and always have Mort Kondrake (sp?) or Juan Williams among others that are liberal. On Fox and Friends this morning, as they do every morning, had a news story about Schools not teaching Cursive anymore, and they had 2 people on there, showing both sides of the issue.

I think, just as many out there, that on the commentary shows, they always give both sides of the issue. On the News programing, like Shepard Smith or Eric Shawn, they are always unbiased.

There is a difference between News and Commentary, and I think there are a lot of people on this forum that really can't tell the difference.

I think we agree.....lol


And to whoever said that people know the difference between news and commentary? No they don't and this very forum proves that. The problem is NOT THE COMMENTARY, that is simply opinion and discussion and they have every right to it....we do alot of that here. The problem is not necessarily the news (except at NBC and MSNBC in my opionion) but people DON'T KNOW THE DIFFERECE....and that is where the problems stem from.

[SuBe]

Smith discusses things...I see news as someone who just reads the headlines and then moves on without going into any detail of its political background. He just isn't heavy handed with the commentary like others. I guess I would agree he is more middle road between news and commentary.

But my point still stands that the problems these biased political commentators cause on the average voter looking for answers is immense in further dividing this country.
The country will be, and always has been divided on Political Ideology. Just as any other Country in the World. People always have their ideas on how things should be done, and no two people are alike.

[SuBe]

I think we agree.....lol


And to whoever said that people know the difference between news and commentary? No they don't and this very forum proves that. The problem is NOT THE COMMENTARY, that is simply opinion and discussion and they have every right to it....we do alot of that here. The problem is not necessarily the news (except at NBC and MSNBC in my opionion) but people DON'T KNOW THE DIFFERECE....and that is where the problems stem from.
You, me, we tight. :word:

Agreed.

[chaseter]

The country will be, and always has been divided on Political Ideology. Just as any other Country in the World. People always have their ideas on how things should be done, and no two people are alike.
But when a dominant two party system encompasses all of those different ideals...then an individual's political ideology is transformed into a republican or democratic bastard offspring. In today's political world...not one leader can go into an office and stay true 100% to his/her ideals the entire time because they will not get re-elected. I hate this country's two party system and I hate campaign finance that just perpetuates that.

[SuBe]

But when a dominant two party system encompasses all of those different ideals...then an individual's political ideology is transformed into a republican or democratic bastard offspring. In today's political world...not one leader can go into an office and stay true 100% to his/her ideals the entire time because they will not get re-elected. I hate this country's two party system and I hate campaign finance that just perpetuates that.
I agree with you. We need a viable 3rd party. I hate the laws that both parties enacted, just to keep them in power. They know it's a tennis match, they know that if they don't have power now, they'll have it soon. It's disgusting.

[Malice]

Its sad, that this country has only two parties...
It really is.

[sinewave]

So you would listen to Phil Gramm before you listened to Maddows on the subject of the economy?

I am not wound up...I just cannot believe people actual defend such a politically biased hate monger because of their beginning or educational background. President Bush had an Ivy League education and people call him an idiot. He also had years and years of political experience with his Governorships and various offices and even grew up in a political family. In theory, he should have been a great president.

Rachel Maddows is intelligent...no one said other wise. Next time I have a political paper to write...I will be sure to bone up on my lacking knowledge of Lame Ducks. Once again, we were talking about good news commentators that bring forth excellent, unbiased, and fair political commentary and don't purposely lean to one side to bash the other on network television.

i'm not sure how we got to this point, but this whole discussion started out when someone claimed that maddow is just as stupid as hannity, based solely on the fact that they're both considered "extreme" on their own ends of the political spectrum. all i did was point out that while that poster may not agree with what she has to say, maddow is still highly educated and most likely very intelligent. hannity, however, was a two-time college drop out. i realize education and intelligence are two different things, but you don't get a doctorate from oxford if you don't have at least a decent amount of natural intelligence. if you put those two people side by side and asked me whether they were of the same level of intelligence, i'd say no. it's as simple as that. if you guys want to play "gotcha" and try to poke holes in my logic, at least take the time to understand what my original point was. thanks.

[sinewave]

I agree with a lot of this, but I don't think that because Daily Show is a Satire that this is the Reason that they are more watched in the 18-25 Demo. I think they are more watched is because of the General Ignorance OF that Demographic.

are you saying that people between the ages of 18 and 25 only generally watch the daily show because they're ignorant?

[ChrisBaleBatman]

In commentary of course there is bias, and even though I dont "love" Maddow, I do find some of her shows interesting, as I do O'Reilly, Beck, and many others....

Certainly.

I find them all pretty entertaining, even if simply because of they're views.

I don't see that many "commentary" shows on CNBC, or CNN that are "conservative" commentary....as I don't see many "liberal" commentary shows on FNC....but I think both as far as their reporting of the news is fine.....


Well, that's simple though...

CNN is pretty much down the middle. They're pretty fair and balanced I think, which is why there's no real commentary show because they sorta just give each they're fair share most of the time, I think.

FNC has no liberals, from what I can tell. So, them having a liberal commentary show is impossible if they don't have a real liberal hosting something to begin with.

So I watch both....as for NBC, sorry that is the most biased NEWS on television today.....IMO, and therefore gets none of my time.

Really?

Is it Contessa Brewer? Or Andria Mitchell?

Because I think during the day, before all the primetime liberal commentary shows, I think there's little bias there. From Hardball to Maddow, though...that's all liberal commentary.

But I just think FNC has more of it, simply because they're bigger and have more content to offer with more shows.


People know the difference between commentary and news but biased commentary is what tears this country apart because they breed polar opposites of one another that make petty attacks to either side constantly. There are good commentary shows and then there are biased commentary shows of which the latter is far more prevalent in today's media because it sells. It is funny to see one issue occurring and if it was from a Democrat, the commentators on MSNBC defend it and the commentators on Fox attack it and vice versa. People are entitled to their opinions but to have an entire network full of the same minded people spouting the same commentary through out the day to fill time slots is stupid and all it does is breed intolerance between the two parties.


But doesn't MOST commentary have to be biased in some form?

Otherwise, it'd just be delivering the news without much opinon at all.

In other words, it'd just be facts and facts and facts. No room, or little room, for opions...which probably wouldn't be what most equate with commentary.

Of course that could just be the result of the last 8 years.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I agree with a lot of this, but I don't think that because Daily Show is a Satire that this is the Reason that they are more watched in the 18-25 Demo. I think they are more watched is because of the General Ignorance OF that Demographic.


Because most of us 18 to 25 year olds are so damn ignorant.

I'm sure the same was said about the hippies back in the day. They're just stupid, lets ignore those clowns.

:whatever:

[SuBe]

are you saying that people between the ages of 18 and 25 only generally watch the daily show because they're ignorant?
Are you saying that the Majority of the people Ages 18 to 25 in this country can name both their Senators, who their Congressman is, the last 5 Presidents in order, and what freedoms are NOT in the Constitution? Do you think that they can give you a detailed response of the Difference between a Profit and a Profit Margin? Can they explain to you the reason this country went to war with Great Britian in 1776?

Can the Majority of these people tell you what the three branches of Government are, and which one is appointed? Can they describe to you what inflation is? Can they even tell you how much Taxes they paid last year?

No, most of these people can't do that, but they sure can tell you who won American Idol last year.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Dude...MOST people between the age of 18 and 66 couldn't do the things you just asked.

That's the luxary of being an American.

[SuBe]

Dude...MOST people between the age of 18 and 66 couldn't do the things you just asked.

That's the luxary of being an American.
And that's a good thing?

[sinewave]

Are you saying that the Majority of the people Ages 18 to 25 in this country can name both their Senators, who their Congressman is, the last 5 Presidents in order, and what freedoms are NOT in the Constitution? Do you think that they can give you a detailed response of the Difference between a Profit and a Profit Margin? Can they explain to you the reason this country went to war with Great Britian in 1776?

Can the Majority of these people tell you what the three branches of Government are, and which one is appointed? Can they describe to you what inflation is? Can they even tell you how much Taxes they paid last year?

No, most of these people can't do that, but they sure can tell you who won American Idol last year.

wasn't there a study that came out a couple of years ago that found that the daily show viewers were on average more informed than those of the other main night time talk shows?

[SuBe]

wasn't there a study that came out a couple of years ago that found that the daily show viewers were on average more informed than those of the other main night time talk shows?
Can they still answer those questions? And, I haven't heard that study, maybe it exists, I dont' know.

[sinewave]

Can they still answer those questions? And, I haven't heard that study, maybe it exists, I dont' know.

i don't know if they can answer those questions. can any other group of people from a different age bracket? does it need to be those specific questions?

i'll try to find the study.

[sinewave]

Here we go. I found something about the study:


‘Daily Show,’ ‘Colbert’ viewers most informed about news

Steve Safran June 17th, 2007

Despite all the new ways of getting news, The Atlantic Monthly (sub req.) reports that Americans don’t know appreciably more about current events than they did before 24/7 news became the norm. There is an exception: People who get their news from the web and viewers of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report know a lot more about the news. A Pew Research Center study found that Americans’ awareness of the U.S. government, current events and international affairs is pretty much the same as it was in 1989. However…

The most knowledgeable Americans were those who got their news from the Web sites of major papers and those who watched programs like The Colbert Report or The Daily Show; they correctly answered 54 percent of the questions about current affairs, while regular viewers of local TV news and network morning shows got only about 35 percent right.

Of course, there’s the question of cause and effect here: it’s possible Daily Show and Colbert watch those shows because they know more about the news - a prerequisite to understanding the jokes. Still, in case you think we pop culture junkies are wasting our brain cells - “Respondents who demonstrated a “high” knowledge of politics and world events were also adept at identifying celebrities such as Beyoncé Knowles.”

http://www.lostremote.com/2007/06/17/daily-show-and-colbert-viewers-most-informed-about-news/

[SuBe]

I found this, The study was done by PEW Research, I'll have to read the whole thing. My first assumption would, they are more informed, but it depends on the questions asked.


http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions

[The Overlord]

There is a difference between News and Commentary, and I think there are a lot of people on this forum that really can't tell the difference.

The Fox news ticker once said Mark Folely is a Democrat, is that not bias News or is just incompetence?

[SuBe]

The Fox news ticker once said Mark Folely is a Democrat, is that not bias News or is just incompetence?
Probably incompetence. Same way some news organizations put an (R) next to Spitzers name.

[sinewave]

I found this, The study was done by PEW Research, I'll have to read the whole thing. My first assumption would, they are more informed, but it depends on the questions asked.


http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions

i did find this stat that relates to your earlier claim, but doesn't seem to apply as much to viewers of the daily show, for instance, who would fit into the same age range.

Dramatic differences emerge when the results are broken down by age. Young people know the least: Only 15% percent of 18-29 year-olds are among the most informed third of the public, compared with 43% of those ages 65 and older.

[SuBe]

i did find this stat that relates to your earlier claim, but doesn't seem to apply as much to viewers of the daily show, for instance, who would fit into the same age range.
So we cool?

It would be funny if it weren't so sad, that the Generation with the Most to lose, cares the least.

[sinewave]

So we cool?

It would be funny if it weren't so sad, that the Generation with the Most to lose, cares the least.

i think so. i just didn't fully agree with your original statement that just because viewers of the daily show fall into the age bracket with statistically the lowest knowledge of politics and current events that they were automatically less informed than those in different age brackets.

i think what's just as sad is that this is the generation that has been around the internet for the majority, if not all, of their lives and they still don't take advantage of having almost an infinite amount of information at their disposal, unless it has to do with pop culture.

[Handsome Rob]

You're being too kind.

He outright said he wants him to fail, because then socialism would fail. He was nowhere near as specific as you're being, which would have been a step in the right direction.

He just wants an epic fail. Which, by Bill O'Reily's standards...makes Rush unAmerican.

Crazy, I know.

.................................................. .........................................

I would have liked him to have succeeded overall, yes.

Because if the President succeeds...guess what? The country does.

Yes, I would have liked for his presidency to have been a sucess because we as a country would have ridden that wave as well.


So you would have backed any direction President Bush undertakes simply because his success would translate into America's success? I highly disagree. Let's say that Pres. Bush believed that overall income tax rates were too low. So, he wants to start by raising the corporate tax rate to 70%. If he did so, I can guarantee that we would see the beginning of a flood of corporations relocating overseas, taking billions in net income and millions of jobs along with them. The effect in this scenario, I think you and I can agree on, would be strongly negative for our country. Then, he would raise the tax rates for all brackets by 10% except for the top bracket--that would raise overall back to 90%. This would have a profound impact on savings, spending, and capital investment. This would also have a horrendously negative impact on the well-being of the citizenry.

President Bush's philosophy of large tax increases would be detrimental to the health of the country, so his overall success in achieving this philosophy would be inversely correlated with the health of the country.

This is essentially what Limbaugh is arguing. He wants Obama to fail when the actions/directions Obama takes are liberal. Why? Limbaugh believes that the conservative philosophy produces the best outcome for the US. Liberalism, he believes, damages the country. So, he doesn't want success for anything that he believes would damage the country. So, he would consider a liberal success for Obama to be a failure for the country. Conversely, a liberal failure for Obama would be a success for the country.

If we're attacked by the EU powers and WWIII breaks out, I'll guarantee you that Limbaugh would want Obama to be successful in winning the war. If Obama decides that tax cuts across the board would be the way to bring America out of this recession, Limbaugh would want Obama to be successful in achieving that. If Obama decides to appoint a conservative Supreme Court justice, I know Limbaugh would want Obama to succeed in that. In each case, Obama would be taking actions that Limbaugh believes will be of the most benefit to the United States and that correlates with Limbaugh's conservative philosophy (strong, hawkish defense, low taxes, and a conservative judiciary).

This is ultimately about the success or failure of the enactment of a political philosophy that in the mind of Limbaugh will result in the success or failure of a country--not about the ultimate success of a man (in this case, Pres. Obama).

[hippie_hunter]

The Fox news ticker once said Mark Folely is a Democrat, is that not bias News or is just incompetence?

Incompetence. MSNBC had Rod Blagojevich as a Republican. Things like this are probably more along the lines of a simple mistake than bias. The people they hire as commentators are a better judge on a networks bias such as Fox News having Hannity and O'Reilly and MSNBC having Olbermann and Maddow.

[cyborg ninja 14]

I don't like watching Fox News because of lacking they are in graphics and eye-pleasing sets. Everything is too blue and red for me.

As far as actual news merits. I prefer CNN. They have more straight-talkers that report and deliver with information without getting too werid (but hey, they all do it, just differently). And yeah, we all know Wolf Blitzer is a tool which is why you should only limit yourself to small incriminates of his Situation Room. I have a lot of respect for Anderson Cooper after reading his book. He legitimately is insane when it comes to his desire to cover world disasters simply because he enjoys it. But he seems to give a damn about being as professional as possible in his position.

I dunno, Fox gets a bad rap for it's mainly conversative makeup. I don't particulary appeal to Hannity cause it sounds like he whines a lot about anything (he hated on RATM one time. Boo) and that's annoying. O'Reilly is simply a terrible interviewer, I could care less about his views. They had that Brit Hume guy, but his droopy voice lol. Shepard Smith, I guess Glenn Beck is on their now with Mike Huckabee (wtf?)

[iDannyR]

Has anyone seen "Hate Hannity" hotline thing that was show on Hannity's show.

So awesome lol/

[Sebastos]

^ What? :huh:

[iDannyR]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_E_KdTJmh3s&feature=related

[Sebastos]

I love how the billboard says Hannity: You know he's right. :rolleyes: More like wrong. :o

[chaseter]

Has anyone seen "Hate Hannity" hotline thing that was show on Hannity's show.

So awesome lol/
Yes I have...it is really funny:woot:

[iDannyR]

Yes I have...it is really funny:woot:
I feel like calling in one day :p

Just to him I feel about him :woot:

[chaseter]

Yeah I want to call it too but I know I won't get on unless I say something crazy!

It is 1-877-SEAN-930 for those interested.

[Kelly]

I feel like calling in one day :p

Just to him I feel about him :woot:


He doesn't give a **** what you think....

Really all it is doing, is making him look good, and his haters look like idiots...:o