Fair & Balanced?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: Fair & Balanced?

    The reach of the Republican alternate reality via its billionaire-backed propaganda arms, Fox News and right-wing radio, bothers me a lot.

    I realize that these lock-step disinformation mills are protected by some sort of loophole in the 1st Amendment. I just wish there were a way around it.

    Principled opposition by a party motivated to find common ground and craft real solutions to real problems is essential to our democracy; but scorched-earth intransigence that relies on the cynical manipulation of millions of Americans with brazen lies is the bitter root of the hostile political atmosphere across much of the USA today.

    I suppose there is no way to legislate honor where there is none.  I guess it's one of those tragedies we all have to live with.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Fair & Balanced?

    Regardless, your comment is absurd. Newspapers have been endorsing candidates for years. It is part of of the news business.

    The executives of those same papers offering favors to to public officials "off the record" is not part of the news business, however, it is apparently part of the FoxNews model and just goes into the bucket of further evidence that Roger Ailes is simply running a GOP media wing with really good production values.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Fair & Balanced?

    In response to UserName99's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The reach of the Republican alternate reality via its billionaire-backed propaganda arms, Fox News and right-wing radio, bothers me a lot.

    I realize that these lock-step disinformation mills are protected by some sort of loophole in the 1st Amendment. I just wish there were a way around it.

    Principled opposition by a party motivated to find common ground and craft real solutions to real problems is essential to our democracy; but scorched-earth intransigence that relies on the cynical manipulation of millions of Americans with brazen lies is the bitter root of the hostile political atmosphere across much of the USA today.

    I suppose there is no way to legislate honor where there is none.  I guess it's one of those tragedies we all have to live with.

    [/QUOTE]


    Bothers you a lot huh?

    Messes up your monopoly?

    ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN?

    How about all the years before cable we were fed nothing but liberal garbage?

    The good old days!!!

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BetheKoolaid. Show BetheKoolaid's posts

    Re: Fair & Balanced?

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    A smoking gun, literally showing collusion between Faux News and a wingnut administration and it's brushed aside with a "Meh, no big deal."

    [/QUOTE]

    'smoking gun'?  A friendly note?

    What have you been smoking...or ingesting?

     

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Fair & Balanced?

    The same thing could be said for MSNBC, and George Stephanopolous. Contraception questions appear out of thin air dweeks before Obama's famous birth control edict? I think not.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Re: Fair & Balanced?

    Coordination, collusion, as Mr. Murdoch has been laid bare in the UK?  Nah.  Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

    Murdoch&Ailes and the EIB network are sales forces.  No more, no less.  Love hearing the #1 salesman, Mr. Limbaugh, boast about the wonderful time he spends at Mr. Ailes's mansion at Groton-on-Hudson.

    At least we're past the phase of it being "only entertainment".

    But they will be subject to the arc of entertainment.  And they will be further laid bare.  Why?  Because it's there.

    Mr. Hearst had his day.  Mr. Murdoch has his.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Re: Fair & Balanced?

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Bothers you a lot huh?

    Messes up your monopoly?

    ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN?

    [/QUOTE]

    Different flavors of the corporate media, Murdoch&Ailes and the EIB network being the bitterest.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Re: Fair & Balanced?

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    How about all the years before cable we were fed nothing but liberal garbage?

    The good old days!!!

    [/QUOTE]

    Like Dr. Will shuttling between Mr. Reagan's dressing room and the ABC commentary booth during the debates?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Fair & Balanced?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I guess about as fair and balanced as NYT's endorsing Obama. 

    Yeah, yeah I know...not the same thing. Course not...

    [/QUOTE]


    I know you love to play hall monitor, but are you really going on the record by saying the following to things are precisely the same:

    - A news source officially endorsing a candidate for Presidency; and

    - A news sources' owner secretly offering "help" to a specific party's official?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Come on we continually get lectured about the independence of news organizations editorial staff/board and the objective news operation.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Fair & Balanced?

    In response to Firewind's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    How about all the years before cable we were fed nothing but liberal garbage?

    The good old days!!!

    [/QUOTE]

    Like Dr. Will shuttling between Mr. Reagan's dressing room and the ABC commentary booth during the debates?

    [/QUOTE]


    Yeah that cost Carter his relection.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Fair & Balanced?

    In response to Firewind's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Bothers you a lot huh?

    Messes up your monopoly?

    ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN?

    [/QUOTE]

    Different flavors of the corporate media, Murdoch&Ailes and the EIB network being the bitterest.

    [/QUOTE]


    You don't watch MSNBC?

    They gave Al Sharpton the race baiter his own show.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Fair & Balanced?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    A handwritten note from Ailes to Condi comes to light, a bit late:

     

     

    Madam Secretary: Great first month. You handled hearing beautifully.

    If I can be of help off the record—just call.

    Warm Regards,

    Roger

    [/QUOTE]


    PEW: MSNBC 'more partisan' than FOXNEWS...

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Fair & Balanced?

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    A handwritten note from Ailes to Condi comes to light, a bit late:

     

     

    Madam Secretary: Great first month. You handled hearing beautifully.

    If I can be of help off the record—just call.

    Warm Regards,

    Roger

    [/QUOTE]


    PEW: MSNBC 'more partisan' than FOXNEWS...

    [/QUOTE]


    There's no doubt that MSNBC is partisan, but nobody who watches MSNBC thinks that all other media has a Republican bias.  Conservatives have themselves thinking that news is only fit to believe if it has Rupert Murdoch's stamp of approval.

     

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BetheKoolaid. Show BetheKoolaid's posts

    Re: Fair & Balanced?

    MSNBC’s coverage of Mitt Romney was far more negative than Fox News’ coverage of President Barack Obama during the period of Aug. 27 through Oct. 21, according to a study from Pew Research Center.

    During that time, 71 percent of MSNBC's coverage of Romney was negative, compared to 46 percent negative coverage of Obama by Fox. The News Corp. network also beat MSNBC on the positive side. Fox gave Obama 6 percent positive coverage, while MSNBC gave Romney only 3 percent positive coverage.

    Overall, the mainstream media evidenced a bias toward Obama, the study shows. Coverage of Obama was 19 percent positive, 30 percent negative, and 51 percent mixed. For Romney, the totals were 15 percent positive, 38 percent negative, and 47 percent mixed.



     http://www.newsmax.com/US/obama-romney-media-coverage/2012/11/02/id/462565#ixzz2B6d3Hw6b

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Fair & Balanced?

    In response to BetheKoolaid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    MSNBC’s coverage of Mitt Romney was far more negative than Fox News’ coverage of President Barack Obama during the period of Aug. 27 through Oct. 21, according to a study from Pew Research Center.

    During that time, 71 percent of MSNBC's coverage of Romney was negative, compared to 46 percent negative coverage of Obama by Fox. The News Corp. network also beat MSNBC on the positive side. Fox gave Obama 6 percent positive coverage, while MSNBC gave Romney only 3 percent positive coverage.

    Overall, the mainstream media evidenced a bias toward Obama, the study shows. Coverage of Obama was 19 percent positive, 30 percent negative, and 51 percent mixed. For Romney, the totals were 15 percent positive, 38 percent negative, and 47 percent mixed.



     http://www.newsmax.com/US/obama-romney-media-coverage/2012/11/02/id/462565#ixzz2B6d3Hw6b

    [/QUOTE]


    Everything Romney has said over the past three months has been either a policy reversal or a straight-out lie.  38 percent negative is a GOP bias - this guy should have been eviscerated by a responsible media.

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Fair & Balanced?

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BetheKoolaid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    MSNBC’s coverage of Mitt Romney was far more negative than Fox News’ coverage of President Barack Obama during the period of Aug. 27 through Oct. 21, according to a study from Pew Research Center.

    During that time, 71 percent of MSNBC's coverage of Romney was negative, compared to 46 percent negative coverage of Obama by Fox. The News Corp. network also beat MSNBC on the positive side. Fox gave Obama 6 percent positive coverage, while MSNBC gave Romney only 3 percent positive coverage.

    Overall, the mainstream media evidenced a bias toward Obama, the study shows. Coverage of Obama was 19 percent positive, 30 percent negative, and 51 percent mixed. For Romney, the totals were 15 percent positive, 38 percent negative, and 47 percent mixed.



     http://www.newsmax.com/US/obama-romney-media-coverage/2012/11/02/id/462565#ixzz2B6d3Hw6b

    [/QUOTE]


    Everything Romney has said over the past three months has been either a policy reversal or a straight-out lie.  38 percent negative is a GOP bias - this guy should have been eviscerated by a responsible media.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZ7ZeHA1GHM

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Fair & Balanced?

    A handwritten note from Ailes to Condi comes to light, a bit late:

     

    Suddenly we discover that Roger Ailes has a point of view. Amazing.

     

     

Share