Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
dave weil wrote:
What I've always hoped for was a "Crossfire" type show somewhere featuring p j o'rourke and Al Franken. That would be hilarious (and insightful). Yeah, I'd like to see that, too. Franken would be no match - comically or politically - and be skillfully eviscerated by O'Rourke. Franken would quickly turn into a boor and probably challenge O'Rourke to a fistfight. GeoSynch |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
dave weil wrote:
And see, it's *you* who's too afraid of getting a wide view of the world. I believe I have a more informed worldview than you do. Since you "avoid" a whole spectrum of coverage, I don't think so. By the way, who is this conservative friend of yours who watches Fox? It ain't March Gibbs, is it? ;-) GeoSynch |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
dave weil wrote:
No it doesn't. It means that they gave estimates throughout the day. What *is* suspect is that one of your main sources didn't even know that Scotland Yard and the Metropolitan Police WERE the same thing. Let me reiterate: Quite a few of the sources I cited listed the 70,000 figure with Scotland, and quite a few of the sources I cited listed the 30,000 figure with the London Metropolitan Police. And one of them didn't even apparently know that the two were one and the same. I think it's interesting that none of the sources you cite (including the AP story) didn't even follow up with the final figure. In fact, the story seems to have been dropped like a lead balloon. No final followup that I can find. Just stories that seem to have been written DURING the event and filed so that they would hit as early as possible in the next US news day. The only thing that matters is that your *own* required "official source" only has one first hand publically published official figure and that's "more than 100,000". Alright already! I'll concede: There *may* *well* *have been* *100,000 protesters*!!! There! I said it! GeoSynch |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
Bruce J. Richman wrote:
GeoSynch wrote: dave weil wrote: Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote: Next time, they should sell tickets, then we would have an accurate count. Maybe they did and the fine print forbade reproducing the event with photographic or recording equipment. "Yeah, that's it! That's the ticket!" J. Lovitz We need a political talk show moderated by Tommy Fla-nay-gan, yeah, that's the ticket! (Or perhaps, Joe Isuzu). We'll just have to make do with the cartoon animation "The Critic" on Comedy Central. GeoSynch |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:33:51 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote: dave weil wrote: You can't compare the first three [CBS, NBC, ABC] to FoxNews You got a point there - they make no pretense of objectivity. Neither does Fox(*our* troops all the time)News. Your liberal biases are showing. Just because Fox doesn't parrot the liberal media propaganda, they are automatically deemed "conservative." Your conservative bias is showing. If every reference to US troops is "our troops" and references to the coalition is "our friends", even during hard news stories, there is obviously a very profound bias present. That is precisely the sort of 'bias' and 'arrogance' Bernard Goldberg chronicled in his two books during the time he worked at CBS. I suspect you know what I meant, but I'll point it out anyway - news shows on the big three are pretty much limited to straight news and not some sort of rambling "roundtable" format, plus, they aren't 24 hour news channels. Are you straighfacedly denying Dan Rather, Peter Jennings - and to a lesser extent - Tom Brokaw are not liberals, and that the news they read are not tainted by their liberal beliefs? I don't think I've ever said that. In fact, I think I'm on record as denying that *any* news organization is bias-free. You do remember that 89% of journalists of all kinds voted for Clinton? Do you think some of them were something other than liberals? Yes I do. Just like you turn a "moderate" like Jane whatsername into a "liberal". Do you really believe that only "liberals" voted for Clinton? It's funny that someone would dare use the term 'objective" to any news outlet that insists on using the word "our" in place of US when referrign to troops and "friends" in place of allies and runs as much fawning coverage of the war as FoxNews does. Is there a subliminal pattern for the way you write the word objective? That's twice you've written it thusly. As to the speciousness of what follows: are they not "our" troops, are allies not our "friends"? Sure they are, but that's not how an objective news service would insist on referring to them. It implies a pro-military and a pro-colalition bias right out of the gate. I will admit that currying favor with your sources is a good way to get the inside scoop. Any reporter worth his salt intuitively knows that. Now you're starting to stray from the point. Oh yeah, the blond this morning patted themselves on the back again saying how "fair and balanced" they were. Look my argument isn't that they don't allow the liberal viewpoint to be shown. I'm talking about the content and presentation of the news stories themselves *and* the fact that their anchors are in the main conservative mouthpieces, or at least spout the FoxNews slant on things. Story selection is another thing as well... Right, as opposed to Rather, Jennings & Brokaw, who are paragons of objective and unbiased credibility! You've been denying that FoxNews has a conservative bias and now you seem to accept that. Thanks for coming around. I haven't made any comments in particular about the big three one way or the other, at least in terms of the "Nightly News". |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:37:08 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote: dave weil wrote: What I've always hoped for was a "Crossfire" type show somewhere featuring p j o'rourke and Al Franken. That would be hilarious (and insightful). Yeah, I'd like to see that, too. Franken would be no match - comically or politically - and be skillfully eviscerated by O'Rourke. Franken would quickly turn into a boor and probably challenge O'Rourke to a fistfight. No way. o'rourke doesn't have the TV savvy. He's really a print guy. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:38:58 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote: dave weil wrote: And see, it's *you* who's too afraid of getting a wide view of the world. I believe I have a more informed worldview than you do. Since you "avoid" a whole spectrum of coverage, I don't think so. By the way, who is this conservative friend of yours who watches Fox? It ain't March Gibbs, is it? ;-) No it's not. It's a guy that I was in the Army with. He lives outside of DC and used to be an officer before he had to take a medical. He's politically right of Attila the Hun. Now, you feel like divulging *your* private life like you seem to want others to do? Didn't think so. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:43:09 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote: dave weil wrote: No it doesn't. It means that they gave estimates throughout the day. What *is* suspect is that one of your main sources didn't even know that Scotland Yard and the Metropolitan Police WERE the same thing. Let me reiterate: Quite a few of the sources I cited listed the 70,000 figure with Scotland, and quite a few of the sources I cited listed the 30,000 figure with the London Metropolitan Police. And one of them didn't even apparently know that the two were one and the same. I think it's interesting that none of the sources you cite (including the AP story) didn't even follow up with the final figure. In fact, the story seems to have been dropped like a lead balloon. No final followup that I can find. Just stories that seem to have been written DURING the event and filed so that they would hit as early as possible in the next US news day. The only thing that matters is that your *own* required "official source" only has one first hand publically published official figure and that's "more than 100,000". Alright already! I'll concede: There *may* *well* *have been* *100,000 protesters*!!! There! I said it! See? That wasn't so hard (except for me). chuckle |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
dave weil wrote:
By the way, who is this conservative friend of yours who watches Fox? It ain't March Gibbs, is it? ;-) No it's not. It's a guy that I was in the Army with. He lives outside of DC and used to be an officer before he had to take a medical. He's politically right of Attila the Hun. He can't be all that bad, then. Now, you feel like divulging *your* private life like you seem to want others to do? Didn't think so. You're on a roll there, Holmes! GeoSynch |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
dave weil wrote:
What I've always hoped for was a "Crossfire" type show somewhere featuring p j o'rourke and Al Franken. That would be hilarious (and insightful). Yeah, I'd like to see that, too. Franken would be no match - comically or politically - and be skillfully eviscerated by O'Rourke. Franken would quickly turn into a boor and probably challenge O'Rourke to a fistfight. No way. o'rourke doesn't have the TV savvy. He's really a print guy. And being a print guy, he'd show up well-prepared, whereas Al would show up drunk and only be prepared to bully and bluster, his usual M.O. GeoSynch |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
PD said: Ropey? Does that mean he snorts a lot of coke? See below http://www.realdictionary.com/R/dir/ropey.asp "forming viscous or glutinous threads" I don't see the resemblance. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:57:10 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote: dave weil wrote: By the way, who is this conservative friend of yours who watches Fox? It ain't March Gibbs, is it? ;-) No it's not. It's a guy that I was in the Army with. He lives outside of DC and used to be an officer before he had to take a medical. He's politically right of Attila the Hun. He can't be all that bad, then. He's is. As well as being one of my closest long distance friends. Now, you feel like divulging *your* private life like you seem to want others to do? Didn't think so. You're on a roll there, Holmes! Shouldn't you be calling me Cannity? |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:59:20 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote: dave weil wrote: What I've always hoped for was a "Crossfire" type show somewhere featuring p j o'rourke and Al Franken. That would be hilarious (and insightful). Yeah, I'd like to see that, too. Franken would be no match - comically or politically - and be skillfully eviscerated by O'Rourke. Franken would quickly turn into a boor and probably challenge O'Rourke to a fistfight. No way. o'rourke doesn't have the TV savvy. He's really a print guy. And being a print guy, he'd show up well-prepared, whereas Al would show up drunk and only be prepared to bully and bluster, his usual M.O. And he'd kick o'rourke's ass. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:33:51 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote: Look my argument isn't that they don't allow the liberal viewpoint to be shown. I'm talking about the content and presentation of the news stories themselves *and* the fact that their anchors are in the main conservative mouthpieces, or at least spout the FoxNews slant on things. Story selection is another thing as well... Right, as opposed to Rather, Jennings & Brokaw, who are paragons of objective and unbiased credibility! I gave this question short shrift because, when I answered, I was sort of running out of time in my preparations for going to work. Maybe you'll think I'm naive, or totally assimilated in leftist culture and all that, but while I don't think that they're "paragons of objective and unbiased credibility", I don't think that they wear their political leanings one-tenth of the way that the Fox people do. Maybe this is because Fox tends to put their anchors in more roundtable positions, but I think it's also the way the Fox writes their rhetoric. I used the example of "our troops" and "our friends". while it sounds great to the citizens of the country, it feels like a "my country love it or leave it" sort of vibe. It's almost like "We're tired of the "liberal" view of the media so we're going to commit the same sin, except we're *really* going to be blatant about it. They give America 5 minutes of our armed forces? We're going to give them 20. We need to balance *all* of the other news outlets all by ourselves. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message ... "dave weil" wrote in message ... On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:36:29 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy" wrote: The main difference with Fox is you know the politics of the talking heads where you don't always on the other networks. Yes, George Will, Bill Kristol and William F. Buckley are notorious left-wing radicals. How long did it take to find out that Cronkite was a liberal? That should tell you how well he hid it. It tells me only that he hid it. CBS has a long history of left wing bias. How long did it take for Brit Hume to come out of the closet? 20 some-odd years? I don't know enough about his past to comment. But I do watch him and he is IMO very balanced. He has his perspective, it is a known quanity. He is a conservative, probably of the moderate variety. When he does interviews he seems to ask balanced questions and get both sides. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 07:26:35 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy" wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:36:29 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy" wrote: The main difference with Fox is you know the politics of the talking heads where you don't always on the other networks. Yes, George Will, Bill Kristol and William F. Buckley are notorious left-wing radicals. How long did it take to find out that Cronkite was a liberal? That should tell you how well he hid it. It tells me only that he hid it. If he hid it, then it had no effect on the coverage, right? He's been off the air to long for me to comment. CBS has a long history of left wing bias. I think we were talking specifically about Cronkite. I was speaking of the bias of most of the media and the fact that Fox does a far better job of covering both sides than the others ever did. How long did it take for Brit Hume to come out of the closet? 20 some-odd years? I don't know enough about his past to comment. But I do watch him and he is IMO very balanced. The few times that I have seen him, I haven't found that to be the case. The research that I have done on him on the Net say otherwise as well. The conservatives worhip him and the left castigates him (and that's enough background evidence to support my limited observations). His leanings are far less hidden than Cronkite's were. I prefer to know the inherent bias of a newsperson, so I can take that into account. And he's just about the equivalent of Cronkite on Fox, right? Cronkite did it longer, so what? |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 07:29:03 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy" wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:36:29 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy" wrote: The bulk of their reporting is through AP and UPI and Reuters. 3 more biased sources, especially Reuters. You've *really* got to be kidding. Now I *know* you've gone 'round the bend. Reuters and CNN both refused to use the word terrorist in reference to the 9/11 incident. Oh really? http://www.space.com/news/plane_attack_010911.html World Trade Center Towers Destroyed in Terrorist Attack in the U.S. By Alan Elsner Reuters posted: 10:40 am ET 11 September 2001 snip If you look at the date stamp on this article, it's clear that Reuters used the word terrorist only 10 minutes after the second tower collapsed. http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/wor...ash/story.html Terror attacks hit U.S. Posted: September 11, 2001 People walk away from the World Trade Center as ash rains down. NEW YORK (CNN) -- Terrorists struck the United States Tuesday morning in harrowing, widespread attacks that included at least three commercial jet crashes into significant buildings. . In the first attack, a plane hits the north tower of the World Trade Center in Manhattan shortly before 9 a.m., followed by another plane into the second tower about 20 minutes later. Both towers later collapse. snip What's the first word in the body of this story? They were terrorists, not simply hijackers who flew into the WTC and the Pentagon. To not recognize their bias shows thatit you who's gone round the bend. Do you just make this stuff up, or do you just read blogs by people spouting nonsense? I only know that they stopped just like CNN. BTW have heard of the European Unions study on Anti-Semitism? They shelved it because they found most of it was coming from Muslims and they didn't want it percieved as anti-Muslim. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
dave weil wrote:
By the way, who is this conservative friend of yours who watches Fox? It ain't March Gibbs, is it? ;-) No it's not. It's a guy that I was in the Army with. He lives outside of DC and used to be an officer before he had to take a medical. He's politically right of Attila the Hun. He can't be all that bad, then. He's is. As well as being one of my closest long distance friends. You must be a bit of a minority down there - a white guy Democrat who actually supports the loony-left national Democrats. For what it's worth, Zell Miller sounds more like a Republican than somebody like Arlen Specter. Now, you feel like divulging *your* private life like you seem to want others to do? Didn't think so. You're on a roll there, Holmes! Shouldn't you be calling me Cannity? Ha-ha. Good one. Do you think Howard Dean has the 'confedate flag on their pickup trucks' Nascar dad vote locked up, or are they waiting for Hillary to jump in and sweep them off their feet? GeoSynch |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
dave weil wrote:
What I've always hoped for was a "Crossfire" type show somewhere featuring p j o'rourke and Al Franken. That would be hilarious (and insightful). Yeah, I'd like to see that, too. Franken would be no match - comically or politically - and be skillfully eviscerated by O'Rourke. Franken would quickly turn into a boor and probably challenge O'Rourke to a fistfight. No way. o'rourke doesn't have the TV savvy. He's really a print guy. And being a print guy, he'd show up well-prepared, whereas Al would show up drunk and only be prepared to bully and bluster, his usual M.O. And he'd kick o'rourke's ass. I'm not sure about that. Have you taken a look at that lumpy face of Franken's? It looks like he's taken quite a few blows, which may explain his punchdrunkedness. GeoSynch |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
dave weil wrote:
Look my argument isn't that they don't allow the liberal viewpoint to be shown. I'm talking about the content and presentation of the news stories themselves *and* the fact that their anchors are in the main conservative mouthpieces, or at least spout the FoxNews slant on things. Story selection is another thing as well... Right, as opposed to Rather, Jennings & Brokaw, who are paragons of objective and unbiased credibility! I gave this question short shrift because, when I answered, I was sort of running out of time in my preparations for going to work. Maybe you'll think I'm naive, or totally assimilated in leftist culture and all that, but while I don't think that they're "paragons of objective and unbiased credibility", I don't think that they wear their political leanings one-tenth of the way that the Fox people do. Their liberal bias take shape in many different forms, chief among which is how news stories are reported and which news stories are either ignored or minimally reported. If you are as fair-minded as you seem to be, how do you account for the news coverage of, say, Trent Lott's tribute to Strom Thurmond as compared to when Sen. Robert Byrd uttered the word "******" twice in a nationally broadcast news interview? And that's just one of many, many, many, many examples I could cite. Maybe this is because Fox tends to put their anchors in more roundtable positions, but I think it's also the way the Fox writes their rhetoric. I used the example of "our troops" and "our friends". while it sounds great to the citizens of the country, it feels like a "my country love it or leave it" sort of vibe. It's almost like "We're tired of the "liberal" view of the media so we're going to commit the same sin, except we're *really* going to be blatant about it. They give America 5 minutes of our armed forces? We're going to give them 20. We need to balance *all* of the other news outlets all by ourselves. Wow, that's stunningly omniscient of you! How's the stock market going to do this year? :-) (BTW, single quote marks are used when paraphrasing.) GeoSynch |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
dave weil wrote:
I'm talking about the content and presentation of the news stories themselves *and* the fact that their anchors are in the main conservative mouthpieces, or at least spout the FoxNews slant on things. Story selection is another thing as well... Right, as opposed to Rather, Jennings & Brokaw, who are paragons of objective and unbiased credibility! You've been denying that FoxNews has a conservative bias and now you seem to accept that. Thanks for coming around. The word "Right" was used sarcastically, not as some sort of affirmation that you read into it. GeoSynch |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:10:17 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote: Maybe this is because Fox tends to put their anchors in more roundtable positions, but I think it's also the way the Fox writes their rhetoric. I used the example of "our troops" and "our friends". while it sounds great to the citizens of the country, it feels like a "my country love it or leave it" sort of vibe. It's almost like "We're tired of the "liberal" view of the media so we're going to commit the same sin, except we're *really* going to be blatant about it. They give America 5 minutes of our armed forces? We're going to give them 20. We need to balance *all* of the other news outlets all by ourselves. Wow, that's stunningly omniscient of you! How's the stock market going to do this year? :-) (BTW, single quote marks are used when paraphrasing.) No pure paraphrases in the above example. There *is* a mock quote though. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:10:17 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote: Maybe you'll think I'm naive, or totally assimilated in leftist culture and all that, but while I don't think that they're "paragons of objective and unbiased credibility", I don't think that they wear their political leanings one-tenth of the way that the Fox people do. Their liberal bias take shape in many different forms, chief among which is how news stories are reported and which news stories are either ignored or minimally reported. I was speaking to the personalities that you asked about, not about the organizations. If you are as fair-minded as you seem to be, how do you account for the news coverage of, say, Trent Lott's tribute to Strom Thurmond as compared to when Sen. Robert Byrd uttered the word "******" twice in a nationally broadcast news interview? I remember the furor over both, but realize that the media goes after the more powerful with more vigor. I don't remember the media giving a pass to Clinton. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:10:33 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote: dave weil wrote: I'm talking about the content and presentation of the news stories themselves *and* the fact that their anchors are in the main conservative mouthpieces, or at least spout the FoxNews slant on things. Story selection is another thing as well... Right, as opposed to Rather, Jennings & Brokaw, who are paragons of objective and unbiased credibility! You've been denying that FoxNews has a conservative bias and now you seem to accept that. Thanks for coming around. The word "Right" was used sarcastically, not as some sort of affirmation that you read into it. But you also said "as opposed to Rather, etc.". Or were you being sarcastic then as well? |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 07:24:18 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy" wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:36:29 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy" wrote: Also, let's look at the columnists used on this site: David Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, Dr. Jack Wheeler (who created the Reagan Doctrine and, who wrote about Clinton "Let's start with two things we know for sure about Hillary. First, she wants to be president. Second, she will do anything to be so. There is no lie she won't tell, no friend she won't destroy, no pledge she won't break, no slander she won't spread, no political dirty trick she won't employ in order to reside in the White House again, this time as the POTUS"), and, of course, the infamous founder of the afformentioned Front Page Magazine, David Horowitz. Formerly employed by the Black Panthers, raised by socialists. So? Eldridge Cleaver sold cock socks and Bobby Seale sold BBQ sauce. He's seen both sides and chose other than liberal. BTW, *he* employed the Black Panthers, not the other way around. That's not what I've heard him say. This from his bio at Front Page: "In the 1970s he created the Oakland Community Learning Center, an inner city school for disadvantaged children that was run by the Black Panther Party". Will we see your retraction? Hardly likely. You'll be likely to spin and spin and spin... I will say that I like the fact that he's still against racial profiling. As should any reasonable person. Except for the Administration, which is bouncing up against the concept. The problem is that much of is cliamed as racial profiling is simply intreting data that shows group X commits more crime or traffic violations than group Y. Statistics are not neccessarily profiling. They may be simple reality. I don't think that it's what's being discussed. I think that what most people think of when they think of racial profiling is more practical applications, like pulling people out of lines at airports because they look Islamic. It's something we have to resist - using "homeland security" to strip the Constitution of its basic protections. Not happening. Since all of the 9/11 terrorists were Arabic and looked it, it is not unreasonable that they should be profiled. If they all came from Sweden and had blonde hair and blue eyes, I would expect people who fit that description to be targeted. However, the only thing that what you mention shows is that one guy changed his political orientation. it doesn't "prove" anything about being liberal (or conservative, for that matter). The point is, he's a pretty arch conservative at the moment. Who knows what he'll be in 10 years? Hopefully he'll continue to brutally honest. Or maybe he'll flip-flop again. Perhaps, if he feels that the GOP is as dishonest as the Dems, but there's slim chance of that. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message ... GeoSynch wrote: dave weil wrote: Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote: Next time, they should sell tickets, then we would have an accurate count. Maybe they did and the fine print forbade reproducing the event with photographic or recording equipment. "Yeah, that's it! That's the ticket!" J. Lovitz GeoSynch We need a political talk show moderated by Tommy Fla-nay-gan, yeah, that's the ticket! (Or perhaps, Joe Isuzu). Bruce J. Richman Or Terry McCauliffe or Tom Daschle or Ted Kennedy. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
dave weil wrote:
I'm talking about the content and presentation of the news stories themselves *and* the fact that their anchors are in the main conservative mouthpieces, or at least spout the FoxNews slant on things. Story selection is another thing as well... Right, as opposed to Rather, Jennings & Brokaw, who are paragons of objective and unbiased credibility! You've been denying that FoxNews has a conservative bias and now you seem to accept that. Thanks for coming around. The word "Right" was used sarcastically, not as some sort of affirmation that you read into it. But you also said "as opposed to Rather, etc.". Or were you being sarcastic then as well? And what were you implying ... what ... exactly? That the "content and presentation of the news stories" mouthed by Rather, Brokaw or Jennings are straight-up, unbiased and fair representations of news events? If that's the case, perhaps you can explain why their ratings have been plummeting over the past few years. Could it be that most people have wised up to the liberal agenda of the elite media and turn elsewhere to find more credible sources of news? GeoSynch |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
dave weil wrote:
Maybe you'll think I'm naive, or totally assimilated in leftist culture and all that, but while I don't think that they're "paragons of objective and unbiased credibility", I don't think that they wear their political leanings one-tenth of the way that the Fox people do. Their liberal bias take shape in many different forms, chief among which is how news stories are reported and which news stories are either ignored or minimally reported. I was speaking to the personalities that you asked about, not about the organizations. Well, you'd have to be naive to think that Dan Rather does not have major input as to the selection of the news stories for the evening's broadcast, or that he doesn't have great influence as to what upcoming stories to focus on. Do you think he just shows up for work, reads words off a teleprompter and then just merrily goes home afterwards? If you are as fair-minded as you seem to be, how do you account for the news coverage of, say, Trent Lott's tribute to Strom Thurmond as compared to when Sen. Robert Byrd uttered the word "******" twice in a nationally broadcast news interview? I remember the furor over both, but realize that the media goes after the more powerful with more vigor. I don't remember the media giving a pass to Clinton. A brilliant piece of finessing - you ought to consider being a politician. :-) GeoSynch |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message ... "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message ... "dave weil" wrote in message ... On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:36:29 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy" wrote: The main difference with Fox is you know the politics of the talking heads where you don't always on the other networks. Yes, George Will, Bill Kristol and William F. Buckley are notorious left-wing radicals. How long did it take to find out that Cronkite was a liberal? That should tell you how well he hid it. It tells me only that he hid it. CBS has a long history of left wing bias. How long did it take for Brit Hume to come out of the closet? 20 some-odd years? I don't know enough about his past to comment. But I do watch him and he is IMO very balanced. He has his perspective, it is a known quanity. He is a conservative, probably of the moderate variety. When he does interviews he seems to ask balanced questions and get both sides. He is a good interviewer, so is Sam Donaldson from the moderate left. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 01:52:42 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote: I think that what most people think of when they think of racial profiling is more practical applications, like pulling people out of lines at airports because they look Islamic. It's something we have to resist - using "homeland security" to strip the Constitution of its basic protections. Not happening. Since all of the 9/11 terrorists were Arabic and looked it, it is not unreasonable that they should be profiled. If they all came from Sweden and had blonde hair and blue eyes, I would expect people who fit that description to be targeted. And Ben Franklin would say that this was a bad thing. So, I take it that you're in favor of racial profiling after all. |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 01:52:42 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote: Or maybe he'll flip-flop again. Perhaps, if he feels that the GOP is as dishonest as the Dems, but there's slim chance of that. Well, I doubt he was a big Democratic Party fan back in his radical days either. He's just switched from being an extreme radical leftist to an extreme radical rightist. And that's a swing that I think isn't to be trusted either. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 10:41:06 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote: dave weil wrote: I'm talking about the content and presentation of the news stories themselves *and* the fact that their anchors are in the main conservative mouthpieces, or at least spout the FoxNews slant on things. Story selection is another thing as well... Right, as opposed to Rather, Jennings & Brokaw, who are paragons of objective and unbiased credibility! You've been denying that FoxNews has a conservative bias and now you seem to accept that. Thanks for coming around. The word "Right" was used sarcastically, not as some sort of affirmation that you read into it. But you also said "as opposed to Rather, etc.". Or were you being sarcastic then as well? And what were you implying ... what ... exactly? That the "content and presentation of the news stories" mouthed by Rather, Brokaw or Jennings are straight-up, unbiased and fair representations of news events? Nope. Remember, I'm on record as saying that there is no such thing as an unbiased news organization. I'm just saying that Fox is particularly obnoxious about it. If that's the case, perhaps you can explain why their ratings have been plummeting over the past few years. Could it be that most people have wised up to the liberal agenda of the elite media and turn elsewhere to find more credible sources of news? Sure. I can explain it. Cable and the internet. In total day ratings for all ad-supported cable channels, FoxNews has an 8 share, and CNN is right behind with a 7 share (21st and 22nd). What I was surprised about was the fact that in primetime, FoxNews is actually second and CNN is 8th. And I think that Fox has the highest rated news program on cable, although I don't know how that compares with the shares that the network nightly news get. I just don't agree that Fox is "more credible" than any of the others. It's definitely biased toward the military. No problem with calling it another piece of the puzzle though. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 10:47:39 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote: If you are as fair-minded as you seem to be, how do you account for the news coverage of, say, Trent Lott's tribute to Strom Thurmond as compared to when Sen. Robert Byrd uttered the word "******" twice in a nationally broadcast news interview? I remember the furor over both, but realize that the media goes after the more powerful with more vigor. I don't remember the media giving a pass to Clinton. A brilliant piece of finessing - you ought to consider being a politician. :-) No way. I wouldn't do well on Fox. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
"GeoSynch" wrote in message
link.net dave weil wrote: I'm talking about the content and presentation of the news stories themselves *and* the fact that their anchors are in the main conservative mouthpieces, or at least spout the FoxNews slant on things. Story selection is another thing as well... Right, as opposed to Rather, Jennings & Brokaw, who are paragons of objective and unbiased credibility! You've been denying that FoxNews has a conservative bias and now you seem to accept that. Thanks for coming around. The word "Right" was used sarcastically, not as some sort of affirmation that you read into it. But you also said "as opposed to Rather, etc.". Or were you being sarcastic then as well? And what were you implying ... what ... exactly? That the "content and presentation of the news stories" mouthed by Rather, Brokaw or Jennings are straight-up, unbiased and fair representations of news events? Good point. Network reporting of national news offers a palette of colorations, so if your into bias, you can pick the kind of bias that makes you feel good. If that's the case, perhaps you can explain why their ratings have been plummeting over the past few years. Could it be that most people have wised up to the liberal agenda of the elite media and turn elsewhere to find more credible sources of news? I think that Fox News is following a proven market development scheme. They've produced something that is definitely philosophically different from all the rest, and dressed it up with a tone that appeals to younger listeners. ABC proved this can work for a TV network as early as the late 1950s. If I've got Fox's management figured out right, they would be flogging a liberal view if the prevailing media view was conservative. If you want to ring up dominant sales in a crowded market, first make what you sell look fundamentally different from all the rest. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 01:52:42 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy" wrote: I think that what most people think of when they think of racial profiling is more practical applications, like pulling people out of lines at airports because they look Islamic. It's something we have to resist - using "homeland security" to strip the Constitution of its basic protections. Not happening. Since all of the 9/11 terrorists were Arabic and looked it, it is not unreasonable that they should be profiled. If they all came from Sweden and had blonde hair and blue eyes, I would expect people who fit that description to be targeted. And Ben Franklin would say that this was a bad thing. So, I take it that you're in favor of racial profiling after all. I'm in favor of catching bad guys. In general, accosting people simple because of their ethnic backround would be wrong. If however a situation like 9/11 happens I think it's perfectly acceptable to scrutinize those people who have something in common with the terrorists, apppearance being one of those things. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 01:52:42 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy" wrote: Or maybe he'll flip-flop again. Perhaps, if he feels that the GOP is as dishonest as the Dems, but there's slim chance of that. Well, I doubt he was a big Democratic Party fan back in his radical days either. He's just switched from being an extreme radical leftist to an extreme radical rightist. And that's a swing that I think isn't to be trusted either. What he's done is wised up to the fact that the left is who wants to stifle dissent and he calls them on it regularly. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message ... "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message ... "dave weil" wrote in message ... On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:36:29 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy" wrote: The main difference with Fox is you know the politics of the talking heads where you don't always on the other networks. Yes, George Will, Bill Kristol and William F. Buckley are notorious left-wing radicals. How long did it take to find out that Cronkite was a liberal? That should tell you how well he hid it. It tells me only that he hid it. CBS has a long history of left wing bias. How long did it take for Brit Hume to come out of the closet? 20 some-odd years? I don't know enough about his past to comment. But I do watch him and he is IMO very balanced. He has his perspective, it is a known quanity. He is a conservative, probably of the moderate variety. When he does interviews he seems to ask balanced questions and get both sides. He is a good interviewer, so is Sam Donaldson from the moderate left. Agreed. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
"G.S. Nail" wrote in message ... dave weil wrote: Oh, so you do watch the Fox News Channel? Excellent, excellent. There's hope for you, yet! Actually, unlike certain people, I try to cover all of the bases. That's right, and by seeing the larger picture it's easier to make sense of what is and what isn't reliable information. Like the BBC. -- S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:17:43 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 01:52:42 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy" wrote: I think that what most people think of when they think of racial profiling is more practical applications, like pulling people out of lines at airports because they look Islamic. It's something we have to resist - using "homeland security" to strip the Constitution of its basic protections. Not happening. Since all of the 9/11 terrorists were Arabic and looked it, it is not unreasonable that they should be profiled. If they all came from Sweden and had blonde hair and blue eyes, I would expect people who fit that description to be targeted. And Ben Franklin would say that this was a bad thing. So, I take it that you're in favor of racial profiling after all. I'm in favor of catching bad guys. In general, accosting people simple because of their ethnic backround would be wrong. If however a situation like 9/11 happens I think it's perfectly acceptable to scrutinize those people who have something in common with the terrorists, apppearance being one of those things. Therefore, you're in favor of racial profiling. So don't deny that you are. Don't forget Ben Franklin's famous quote. And if you can't figure out which quote applies here, feel free to NICELY ask me what it is... |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:19:35 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote: He is a good interviewer, so is Sam Donaldson from the moderate left. Agreed. I've never liked Donaldson, whom I find strident and an appalling wearer of toupees. |