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

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

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

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

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".

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

"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
=---

"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?

"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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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?

"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.

"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.

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

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

"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 =---

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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
=---

"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

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...

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.