How"Fair and Balanced" media works:

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: How

    I don't know anyone who thinks any media is fair and balanced

     

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

    Re: How

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    [QUOTE]I don't know anyone who thinks any media is fair and balanced[/QUOTE]


    Sounds like you replied based solely on the title, seeing as I never asserted that a particular person thinks "any media is fair and balanced."

     

    "Fair and balanced" is Fox News' motto....       the use in the title was sarcastic.

    [/QUOTE]

    "So stop your endless and stupid whining about the "librul lamestream media" and "liberal rag" media that is supposedly fooling everyone. The rightwing media is just as bad. You have to actually read both."

    To which I followed up by merely saying I personally don't know anyone who thinks ANY media is fair and balanced.

    I was basically agreeing with you that the rigthwing media IS just as bad.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: How

    Well, the right-wing piece was spun into the ground, but the left-wing piece was completely accurate.  Am I missing something?  

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: How

    Someone is messing with the board again. I didn't even get to see the posts that were removed. So silly

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

    Re: How

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Well, the right-wing piece was spun into the ground, but the left-wing piece was completely accurate.  Am I missing something?  

    [/QUOTE]


     

    No. But it does sometimes go the other way. The point is simply that I've seen enough threads crying about left-wing bias in the 'media', and that if one consistently reads sources that are biased in opposite directions, 'bias' has little effect.

    [/QUOTE]


    When conservatives complain about left-wing bias, I don't think they are complaining about the facts of articles so much as lack of coverage of what they think is important.

    The problem is Fox News hammers non-stories into the ground.  Maybe the story doesn't even get a lot of air-time on the regular news, but Hannity and O'Reilly will each give it 30 minutes a show for weeks.  Then the Limbaugh's and John Gibsons and Laura Ingrahams get a hold of it, and a non-story becomes the biggest scandal since water-gate.

    Then the main-stream media, who in their hearts know there is no story, start feeling the weight of nearly half the country thinking they are being too generous to Obama (not to mention their sinking ratings) and they concede out of survival.

    And that's how the left-leaning media is actually hurting the left. 

    The best example I can think of is Reverend Wright and the 2008 campaign.  Republicans couldn't find anything wrong with Obama, so we kept hearing about Reverend Wright, Reverend Wright.  Main-stream media resisted as long as they could, because never in the history of politics have the sermons of a man's preacher been an issue, but they eventually caved.  And of course, nobody has heard of Reverend Wright since November 2008, because it was never really a story to begin with.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re: How

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The best example I can think of is Reverend Wright and the 2008 campaign.  Republicans couldn't find anything wrong with Obama, so we kept hearing about Reverend Wright, Reverend Wright.  Main-stream media resisted as long as they could, because never in the history of politics have the sermons of a man's preacher been an issue, but they eventually caved.  And of course, nobody has heard of Reverend Wright since November 2008, because it was never really a story to begin with.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You're right; the mainstream media did resist the story as long as they could. Finally, the story became too big to ignore. And as you stated they eventually caved.

    Now, had McCain or Romney been part of a church for 20 years that had a preacher who was spouting out radical conservative views, way out of the mainstream. Do you think that same press would have resisted covering the story as long as they could until finally caving? Do you? 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: How


    Fox goes beyond not being "Fair and Balanced".  They are in Soviet style propaganda territory.

    I just spent a week visiting my mother, where her husband (an otherwise intelligent man) had the TV glued to Fox, so I ended up getting a heavy secondary dose.  Its blatently obvious that Fox isn't news or journalism. It's a 24/7 infomercial for the Republican party pretending to be a news channel, and little else.  It is a non-stop parade of information that is deceptive, misleading, incomplete and at most times completely incorrect.....intended to keep the viewers in a perpetual state of fear and rage.

    I used to think Fox misinformation was harmless, or at least neutralized by main-stream news.  Not any more.  Their deliberate falsehoods, and misinformation to support an agenda is wreaking havoc with our democracy.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: How

    In response to newman09's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The best example I can think of is Reverend Wright and the 2008 campaign.  Republicans couldn't find anything wrong with Obama, so we kept hearing about Reverend Wright, Reverend Wright.  Main-stream media resisted as long as they could, because never in the history of politics have the sermons of a man's preacher been an issue, but they eventually caved.  And of course, nobody has heard of Reverend Wright since November 2008, because it was never really a story to begin with.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You're right; the mainstream media did resist the story as long as they could. Finally, the story became too big to ignore. And as you stated they eventually caved.

    Now, had McCain or Romney been part of a church for 20 years that had a preacher who was spouting out radical conservative views, way out of the mainstream. Do you think that same press would have resisted covering the story as long as they could until finally caving? Do you? 

    [/QUOTE]

    lol.....do some research on the Mormon church's history of racism. 

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re: How

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to newman09's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The best example I can think of is Reverend Wright and the 2008 campaign.  Republicans couldn't find anything wrong with Obama, so we kept hearing about Reverend Wright, Reverend Wright.  Main-stream media resisted as long as they could, because never in the history of politics have the sermons of a man's preacher been an issue, but they eventually caved.  And of course, nobody has heard of Reverend Wright since November 2008, because it was never really a story to begin with.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You're right; the mainstream media did resist the story as long as they could. Finally, the story became too big to ignore. And as you stated they eventually caved.

    Now, had McCain or Romney been part of a church for 20 years that had a preacher who was spouting out radical conservative views, way out of the mainstream. Do you think that same press would have resisted covering the story as long as they could until finally caving? Do you? 

    [/QUOTE]

    lol.....do some research on the Mormon church's history of racism. 

    [/QUOTE]


    It would have been nice if you answered the questiuon, but you dodge it.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: How

    In response to newman09's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to newman09's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The best example I can think of is Reverend Wright and the 2008 campaign.  Republicans couldn't find anything wrong with Obama, so we kept hearing about Reverend Wright, Reverend Wright.  Main-stream media resisted as long as they could, because never in the history of politics have the sermons of a man's preacher been an issue, but they eventually caved.  And of course, nobody has heard of Reverend Wright since November 2008, because it was never really a story to begin with.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You're right; the mainstream media did resist the story as long as they could. Finally, the story became too big to ignore. And as you stated they eventually caved.

    Now, had McCain or Romney been part of a church for 20 years that had a preacher who was spouting out radical conservative views, way out of the mainstream. Do you think that same press would have resisted covering the story as long as they could until finally caving? Do you? 

    [/QUOTE]

    lol.....do some research on the Mormon church's history of racism. 

    [/QUOTE]


    It would have been nice if you answered the questiuon, but you dodge it.

    [/QUOTE]


    Actually....I think I did answer the question.  The media paid no attention to the racism of the church that Mitt was a part of.

    Why?...because its irrelivant, just like Rev. Wright.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re: How

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to newman09's comment:

     


    You're right; the mainstream media did resist the story as long as they could. Finally, the story became too big to ignore.

     




     

    You more or less just completely proved his point.

    [/QUOTE]

    They always resist any negative Obama stories until it becomes too big to ignore, especially during a campaign. I'm missing how I proved his point??

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re: How

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to newman09's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to newman09's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The best example I can think of is Reverend Wright and the 2008 campaign.  Republicans couldn't find anything wrong with Obama, so we kept hearing about Reverend Wright, Reverend Wright.  Main-stream media resisted as long as they could, because never in the history of politics have the sermons of a man's preacher been an issue, but they eventually caved.  And of course, nobody has heard of Reverend Wright since November 2008, because it was never really a story to begin with.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You're right; the mainstream media did resist the story as long as they could. Finally, the story became too big to ignore. And as you stated they eventually caved.

    Now, had McCain or Romney been part of a church for 20 years that had a preacher who was spouting out radical conservative views, way out of the mainstream. Do you think that same press would have resisted covering the story as long as they could until finally caving? Do you? 

    [/QUOTE]

    lol.....do some research on the Mormon church's history of racism. 

    [/QUOTE]


    It would have been nice if you answered the questiuon, but you dodge it.

    [/QUOTE]


    Actually....I think I did answer the question.  The media paid no attention to the racism of the church that Mitt was a part of.

    Why?...because its irrelivant, just like Rev. Wright.

    [/QUOTE]


    Captain of the debate team you are not.

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

    Re: How

    The most I hear/see/read about FOX News is right here. I never watch it.

    How low has journalism sunk when someone thinks the way to find the truth is to read two stories baised from opposite perspectives. Maybe you are referring to opinion pieces, that I could see - reading two opposite opinions and using that to come to your own conclusions.

    But news stories? I don't think that is a method for finding the truth.

    As an example of shoddy left-wing journalism you can read the 9-page excuse making piece in the Boston Globe that claims the Tsarniev turds are homegrown terrorists because their mommy and daddy were mean to them.

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/Page/Boston/2011-2020/WebGraphics/Metro/BostonGlobe.com/2013/12/15tsarnaev/tsarnaev.html

    The Boston Globe, now below bird cage status.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: How

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to newman09's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to newman09's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The best example I can think of is Reverend Wright and the 2008 campaign.  Republicans couldn't find anything wrong with Obama, so we kept hearing about Reverend Wright, Reverend Wright.  Main-stream media resisted as long as they could, because never in the history of politics have the sermons of a man's preacher been an issue, but they eventually caved.  And of course, nobody has heard of Reverend Wright since November 2008, because it was never really a story to begin with.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You're right; the mainstream media did resist the story as long as they could. Finally, the story became too big to ignore. And as you stated they eventually caved.

    Now, had McCain or Romney been part of a church for 20 years that had a preacher who was spouting out radical conservative views, way out of the mainstream. Do you think that same press would have resisted covering the story as long as they could until finally caving? Do you? 

    [/QUOTE]

    lol.....do some research on the Mormon church's history of racism. 

    [/QUOTE]


    It would have been nice if you answered the questiuon, but you dodge it.

    [/QUOTE]


    Actually....I think I did answer the question.  The media paid no attention to the racism of the church that Mitt was a part of.

    Why?...because its irrelivant, just like Rev. Wright.

    [/QUOTE]

    Bullshite....

     

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: How

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to newman09's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to newman09's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The best example I can think of is Reverend Wright and the 2008 campaign.  Republicans couldn't find anything wrong with Obama, so we kept hearing about Reverend Wright, Reverend Wright.  Main-stream media resisted as long as they could, because never in the history of politics have the sermons of a man's preacher been an issue, but they eventually caved.  And of course, nobody has heard of Reverend Wright since November 2008, because it was never really a story to begin with.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You're right; the mainstream media did resist the story as long as they could. Finally, the story became too big to ignore. And as you stated they eventually caved.

    Now, had McCain or Romney been part of a church for 20 years that had a preacher who was spouting out radical conservative views, way out of the mainstream. Do you think that same press would have resisted covering the story as long as they could until finally caving? Do you? 

    [/QUOTE]

    lol.....do some research on the Mormon church's history of racism. 

    [/QUOTE]


    It would have been nice if you answered the questiuon, but you dodge it.

    [/QUOTE]


    Actually....I think I did answer the question.  The media paid no attention to the racism of the church that Mitt was a part of.

    Why?...because its irrelivant, just like Rev. Wright.

    [/QUOTE]

    Bullshite....

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Just skimmed the article.  No mention of the institutional racism in the Mormon church.  In fact, this article was written by NY Times token righty Ross Douthat.

    Fail.

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

    Re: How

    In response to newman09's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The best example I can think of is Reverend Wright and the 2008 campaign.  Republicans couldn't find anything wrong with Obama, so we kept hearing about Reverend Wright, Reverend Wright.  Main-stream media resisted as long as they could, because never in the history of politics have the sermons of a man's preacher been an issue, but they eventually caved.  And of course, nobody has heard of Reverend Wright since November 2008, because it was never really a story to begin with.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You're right; the mainstream media did resist the story as long as they could. Finally, the story became too big to ignore. And as you stated they eventually caved.

    Now, had McCain or Romney been part of a church for 20 years that had a preacher who was spouting out radical conservative views, way out of the mainstream. Do you think that same press would have resisted covering the story as long as they could until finally caving? Do you? 

    [/QUOTE]

    Sarah Palin was part of a church where she would speak in tongues.  Her husband was part of a group whose aims were to have Alaska secede from the US.  

    The racism WDYWN is talking about involves a history of Mormon's disallowing blacks from becoming Priests.  Also, of baptising Jews after they have died.   Remember - Romney wasn't just a witness to this - he was a church leader, and a financial supporter.

    Reagan was a born-again Christian.  Carter a Southern Baptist.  Nixon a Quaker for God's sake.  None of this was ever newsworthy before Obama.

    FYI - do you know where the Reverend Wright story originated?  It was on Hannity, and it was because Hannity had Reverend Wright on the show to discuss an unrelated matter that had a racial component.  The two didn't get along at all - maybe because Hannity chose Mark Fuhrman (the racist cop from the OJ trial) to sit counter-point.  Soon after it was pretty much all you would see on Fox News.

     

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     

Share