fox news contributor: kill obama

[someguy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjYpkvcmog0

http://www.bradblog.com/Images/siren.gif
http://www.bradblog.com/Images/siren.gif

[shoe1985]

Hmm, I don't how to take this because I don't know the woman. On one hand, I believe she should be fired and be thrown in front of a bus. On the other hand, I want to bitch slap her.

[Moviefan1234]

What an unclassy move. It's examples like that why I wouldn't watch Fox News for a million dollars. How can they put people like that on their station?

[Criminal Rock]

Get a fucking hobby you stupid wench... seriously.

[KcMsterpce]

In very bad taste.

[Tweek]

I wonder if she thought that actually was comedic gold.

[Cop No. 633]

I'm convinced these people are the equivalent of demons sucking on the teat of the Devil, which is love of the All Ighty Ollar at this point in history. The world would be a much better place without that mentality.

[jolanar]

I am shocked and appalled.


Scratch that, I'm just appalled.

[jeo4]

Why would anyone bother watching Fox News? They openly spread as many rumours and outright lies as possible on anyone who doesn't align with their biased way of thinking. That some moronic old bitch comes onto the network and says Barack Obama should be killed puts her in the same boat as Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. Anything these fucking idiots say should be disregarded. The same holds true for Fox News. It's easily the worst network on television; it has a distorted agenda, extreme bias, and zero journalistic integrity.

[Homyrrh]

Why would anyone bother watching Fox News? They openly spread as many rumours and outright lies as possible on anyone who doesn't align with their biased way of thinking. That some moronic old bitch comes onto the network and says Barack Obama should be killed puts her in the same boat as Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. Anything these fucking idiots say should be disregarded. The same holds true for Fox News. It's easily the worst network on television; it has a distorted agenda, extreme bias, and zero journalistic integrity.
I must ask then, hypothetically, if FOX News is the devil with it's blatant and inexcusable conservative lean, how neutral, unsensational and "stomachable" is CNN?

[someguy]

The 'well ___ is just as bad!' argument is old. He doesn't mention any other network in his rantings on Fox News. CNN has its fuck-ups along with every other network but have you ever seen one of their contributors or reporters come on and make a joke about assassinating one of the presidential candidates?

[Cop No. 633]

CNN, haha, that's priceless. There's no way in hell anybody could defend what this lady said on this infotainment channel. I mean, really, what do you think about what this sick woman has said? Is that something really worth defending? It doesn't even matter that she is Republican, what matters is that she has no regard for this man's life who is worth much more than that sack of bones.

[Moviefan1234]

I must ask then, hypothetically, if FOX News is the devil with it's blatant and inexcusable conservative lean, how neutral, unsensational and "stomachable" is CNN?

While, not without their mistakes, CNN is infinitely more reliable than Fox News.

[someguy]

Her 'apology'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKlv6vQca8k

she sounds like she doesn't even care haha

[shoe1985]

I must ask then, hypothetically, if FOX News is the devil with it's blatant and inexcusable conservative lean, how neutral, unsensational and "stomachable" is CNN?

I love when someone brings in another network. It is like when people discuss older drivers being retested, then people have to bring in younger drivers. The topic is this woman and her remark. FoxNews is known for things like this though. They have an audience, and those people will believe everything the network says because they feel what is said. CNN isn't perfect, nobody or network is, but I will listen to CNN more than anything on FoxNews anyday of the week.

This isn't a Republican or a Democrat issue, it is an issue that needs to be discussed. This woman is going to come across the wrong person one day, and her age won't save her.

[Badbird]

CNN/Headline News do way too much fluff, but they're also still pretty serviceable when it comes to actual, you know, news.

FOX is nothing but commentary pretending to be news. CNN, MSN, etc, actually report and investigate shit, provide facts, and talk about what's going on in general. The Chinese earthquakes don't have a liberal bias, they're just a bunch of fucking disasters, and that's what's getting reported.

If there was such a liberal bias, why aren't they hammering the fuck out of John McCain for all the stupid shit he's saying and doing, or how he's a fucking flip flopping sell out?

[electriclite]

I'm gonna channel JohntheHenchmen here:

"Its not like she's gonna make it happen."



Ok, I've lost the spirit....


Clearly this woman needs repeat guest commentary business so she's obviously ripping off the wonderful Ann Coulter cause God knows, she used to get repeat appearances from Fox News.

[Homyrrh]

As I said my inquiry was merely hypothetical. I only wanted to see where others stand.

I should make note, however, that BECAUSE of, not instead, my own conservative lean, I both watch CNN and read the NY Times daily. This obviously yields a much more neutral experience.

But as for the woman, I'd be interested to her take on a couple other things...

[SpoonMan999]

Fox News is way too heavy on how extremely right they lean but I find it hilarious that Bill Mahr can say that someone should kill Cheney and you all defend his actions and then this happens you all go crazy? Hypocrisy anyone?

[Homyrrh]

Fox News is way too heavy on how extremely right they lean but I find it hilarious that Bill Mahr can say that someone should kill Cheney and you all defend his actions and then this happens you all go crazy? Hypocrisy anyone?
Bill Maher? Alive? Speaking? Who cares?

Dude's some scum.

[someguy]

Fox News is way too heavy on how extremely right they lean but I find it hilarious that Bill Mahr can say that someone should kill Cheney and you all defend his actions and then this happens you all go crazy? Hypocrisy anyone?

Show me this.

[SpoonMan999]

Where Maher said we should kill Cheney? Just google it you can find it pretty easily I'm sure.

[electriclite]

Fox News is way too heavy on how extremely right they lean but I find it hilarious that Bill Mahr can say that someone should kill Cheney and you all defend his actions and then this happens you all go crazy? Hypocrisy anyone?


Yeah exactly. This has been done waaaaay too often to be considered even forum worthy:


Pat Robertson suggesting we whack Hugo Chavez.

Maher and the Cheney bit

and now this

And I'm sure there's a much longer trail of these occurances. I mean Ann Coulter has books worth of times she's wished death on a Dem politician.

This is the point where Lynn7 would chime in and say that the Dems do it all the time and bring up Carville and some other moldy, liberal politicos I ignore.

Also if you claim to already know what Fox News is all about, what's with the "shock and awe"? I mean is someone keeping a scorecard that after a fixed number of collected Fox bias examples can be traded in later for free Hybrid car? Or get the channel pulled off the air? Cause if its the latter I'll pull up a chair, a note pad and have my TV set to it 24/7.

A more real world answer is that this is what the discourse of politics has become: the outright wishing of death upon our political opposite. Its just gotten that dirty.

We are far removed from the days of William F. Buckley Jr.

[SpoonMan999]

We need to stop focusing on what the extremists are saying and listen to the majority of the party to form our opinions. Being a Republican I'm rather offended when someone assumes I probably own a gun and watch The O'Reilly Factor. I'll admit I have watched Fox News on occasion but I also watch CNN and pretty much any channel that happens to be reporting something that sounds interesting. Just because they're so far right doesn't mean they don't report facts they just put their spin on it. Faulting them for what Michael Moore has been given awards for, just doing it to the left instead of the right, is kind of shitty.

[someguy]

Where Maher said we should kill Cheney? Just google it you can find it pretty easily I'm sure.

No no I mean the thread where we all defended it.

[The Heart Collector]

There is a sort of difference, which is that Barack Obama is a simple politician, whereas Dick Cheney is the third head of the great Satan and every day I wish I could dismember him, defile him, and eat his heart.

[SpoonMan999]

No no I mean the thread where we all defended it.

Don't need to now:

There is a sort of difference, which is that Barack Obama is a simple politician, whereas Dick Cheney is the third head of the great Satan and every day I wish I could dismember him, defile him, and eat his heart.

[Edit] Though I'll admit I was thinking of the wrong forum when I made that post before so I apologise for assuming.

[someguy]

Don't need to now:



[Edit] Though I'll admit I was thinking of the wrong forum when I made that post before so I apologise for assuming.

That's better. Just because THC says it didn't make the fact that you said we all supported Maher.

[SpoonMan999]

That's better. Just because THC says it didn't make the fact that you said we all supported Maher.

But the issue still stands, it's not such a big deal when someone from your own party says it. I personally think she fucked up but it's being blown out of proportion, as I feel about a lot of things Mahr says. We're all entitled to freedom of speech and if you get butt hurt when someone wishes death upon someone you like...well, I hope for my sake you guys aren't Fred Durst fans.

[Homyrrh]

Concluding, it's ignoant to watch FOX, CNN, MSNBC, etc. with your guard down. Regardless of HOW they express bias, or even HOW MUCH, the simple fact that they lean in any direction AT ALL is unfortunate, though unavoidable.

Punditry and partisanship are more than just beautifully aliterative, often irrefutable and unfortunate synonyms.

[Homyrrh]

Wait, are we still on MAher? The guy's a douche. THe lady's a piece of shit too, but she wasn't given her own show...

...or at least hopefully not:rolleyes:

Twenty bucks says she's on O'Reilly tomorrow night.

[SpoonMan999]

Being that I'm at work I can't go to YouTube so can someone tell me the name of the person who said it?

[someguy]

Liz Trotta.

And I think that it's silly to compare a comedian who discusses and jokes about politics with someone like this.

[Scarfather]

Where does thinking Trotta and Maher are worthless land me in your magical world of partisan bias, Spoony?

[Homyrrh]

Where does thinking Trotta and Maher are worthless land me in your magical world of partisan bias, Spoony?
In my camp.

[Badbird]

Yeah, but was Bill Maher speaking on behalf of a news channel?

[SpoonMan999]

Yeah, but was Bill Maher speaking on behalf of a news channel?

It doesn't matter who he's representing...This is what I mean about defending shit like this. Thanks for proving my point.

Where does thinking Trotta and Maher are worthless land me in your magical world of partisan bias, Spoony?

It puts you where I am.

[jeo4]

I must ask then, hypothetically, if FOX News is the devil with it's blatant and inexcusable conservative lean, how neutral, unsensational and "stomachable" is CNN?

Glad you asked, because just yesterday, CNN let out a collective gasp at Barack Obama's commencement speech (obviously the one where he replaces Ted Kennedy), which apparently mentioned serving our country, but omitted any mention of military service.

So, just because he didn't mention it, it's an obvious swipe at our folks in uniform? That's one of the most ridiculous assumptions the network could make. And they did it at the most opportune time. Jon Stewart may be in full orgasm as we speak because it requires no effort to extract humor from a story like this.

That said, even with partisan/dirt-digging/idiotic stories similar to this running on all other news networks, they're all entire galaxies of facts above Fox News. Using reason and logic should be a rule when watching any network news program, but the bad far outweighs the good on Fox. I'm not wasting my time.

[SpoonMan999]

Another thing I find hilarious...so many of you claim to refuse to watch Fox News yet talk like you know exactly what comes on. Am I the only one noticing this? I don't watch it either I'm just laughing about how critical people can be of something they refuse to experience.

[jeo4]

I personally think it's great that people have taken the time to educate themselves and experience what happens on this network, which of course makes staying away from it much easier.

[Cop No. 633]

Another thing I find hilarious...so many of you claim to refuse to watch Fox News yet talk like you know exactly what comes on. Am I the only one noticing this? I don't watch it either I'm just laughing about how critical people can be of something they refuse to experience.

I have watched Fox News Channel, not for news, but to see how they deconstruct real stories and use it as fodder to push a specific point of view rather than tell the news. Hannity and Colmes are notorious for this. Maybe other people do this as well. It's certainly not the "news" that we're paying attention to but the attitude and the total disregard for journalism on this network. If I saw a show a few times I'm not going to say I follow it or that I watch it regularly. I'm sure there are other people on here who think the same way, but it ends up being confused for, "I never watch that show," when they really mean, "I don't follow it."

I do think you should have some sort of knowledge of what you're against.

[Mopar Fanatic]

I doubt she'd like to see him literally murdered, but she looked like a cunt, so maybe she would.

The Obama/Osama mistake is completely understandable given the similarity of the names and the place in popular culture both have taken.

At the same time, wouldn't put it past an old conservative shithead to "accidentally" make that mistake to play up the association between the two.

Regardless, utterly retarded thing to say, especially for someone who seemingly knew she was on television.

Basically, you could look at it as stupid and harmless if you'd like. If you want, you can find evil and racism fueling her every word and deed. It's up to you.

[Homyrrh]

Whatever, guys. I get all my news from the Onion News channel on YouTube.

[MadsenOMC]

For the last six months, since I'm home with my son during the day, I've watched a lot of CNN and MSNBC. I now find the claims of liberal bias puzzling and untrue. Like someone else said, these channels sure do a lot of fluffy stories on a daily basis. They also have a fair share of conservative commentators on both networks. The news reporting is very middle of the road. It's only liberal if you think anything to the left of extreme right is liberal.

[The Postmaster General]

I never heard of her before this comment, so she can suck the big one for all I care.

Bill Maher is a pseudo-intellectual smarmy comedian. Dennis Miller is pretty much his counter-part. Okay, we can cancel them out of the discussion because either way This Old Lady was making a really serious point and for no reason what so ever made a joke about killing a presidential candidate who, unlike Dick Cheney, fits a much larger profile that already makes him a target for assassination. Sure, she made a joke, but then she came back and disowned that joke, taking an alleged high-ground. So apparently she can't even decide which ground she sucks the big one on, but be damned if she doesn't want to drive it in that she sucks it hard. Defend her on any front you want, but apparently she's not leaving much to suck on, so you have to go to pretty outrageous lengths to suck it like she sucks it. That doesn't mean I totally don't get where you're coming from. I kind of feel sorry for the old fruitcake.

[Homyrrh]

I have watched Fox News Channel, not for news, but to see how they deconstruct real stories and use it as fodder to push a specific point of view rather than tell the news. Hannity and Colmes are notorious for this. Maybe other people do this as well. It's certainly not the "news" that we're paying attention to but the attitude and the total disregard for journalism on this network. If I saw a show a few times I'm not going to say I follow it or that I watch it regularly. I'm sure there are other people on here who think the same way, but it ends up being confused for, "I never watch that show," when they really mean, "I don't follow it."

I do think you should have some sort of knowledge of what you're against.
I am no viewer of H&C, but I've always been under the impression that the basis of the show was the clash of either's adamant fringist partisanship.

[SpoonMan999]

For the last six months, since I'm home with my son during the day, I've watched a lot of CNN and MSNBC. I now find the claims of liberal bias puzzling and untrue. Like someone else said, these channels sure do a lot of fluffy stories on a daily basis. They also have a fair share of conservative commentators on both networks. The news reporting is very middle of the road. It's only liberal if you think anything to the left of extreme right is liberal.

CNN has especially been known for showing Democratic politicians in a positive light but tend to show mostly negative footage on Republicans. Sure they show the occasional John McCain holding a baby type thing but they show favoritism. Damn near every network has some sort of agenda, unfortunately, and they'll always leave out a little something here or exagerate something there. Nobody can just tell it like it is and that pisses me off.

[MadsenOMC]

The networks do have an agenda. That agenda is ratings and making money, not going out of their way to push a political bias (at least when it comes to CNN & MSNBC).

You also make a very broad generalization when you state that CNN goes out of their way to show Democrats in a favorable light while showing mostly negative footage when it comes to Republicans. Can you back that up with facts and/or examples?

[SpoonMan999]

I can't back it up with recent examples, because I just really don't watch TV anymore. But as an example when Bush Sr. was president their analysts were all over him for raising taxes when he said he wouldn't and he criticized heavily by CNN. However, when the Clinton sex scandal happened they covered it heavily as it was big news but they didn't really criticize him much for it and just kind of shrugged it off. Those are two large incidents where they showed some bias, Republican was wrong but ehh the Democrat just wanted a blow job.

[Homyrrh]

I can't back it up with recent examples, because I just really don't watch TV anymore. But as an example when Bush Sr. was president their analysts were all over him for raising taxes when he said he wouldn't and he criticized heavily by CNN. However, when the Clinton sex scandal happened they covered it heavily as it was big news but they didn't really criticize him much for it and just kind of shrugged it off. Those are two large incidents where they showed some bias, Republican was wrong but ehh the Democrat just wanted a blow job.
I'd be a bit more substantial, for your sake.

OT though, Rolling Stone is the worst...anyone see Obama haloed on their cover a couple months ago?

[MadsenOMC]

Yeah sorry SpoonMan but those are extremely weak examples and do nothing to support your argument.

I stopped reading Rolling Stone a long time ago.

[Homyrrh]

OT again, I was reading in Newsweek that some fringist conservative talk show host was, when discussing Senator Ted Kennedy, playing songs by the Dead Kennedys and joking about his brain tumor. He scored a 96/100 on their scumbag meter (or whatever it's called)...

[Cop No. 633]

How can you equate a President lying about a blow job (which any married man WOULD do) to a President lying about a tax raise which affects all of us? How about Bush's lie about how "dangerous" Iraq was to our nation? There's a big difference between those examples. One of them didn't affect the economy, lives, or well being of our nation.

I highly recommend you check out Al Franken's book Lies and the Lying Liars that Tell Them. You may think he's a biased man, but he gets his facts straight about Fox's "fair and balanced" brand of the news.

[Jon Lyrik]

You got to be kidding me. Proof of liberal bias on major stations from two vague anecdotes from 10+ years ago?

Look folks: there is no such thing as a political bias on a news station. At all. No. You may have been able to make a case thirty years ago, but it's all been bought out and homogenized for ratings. The only bias they have is...money. Fox News puts on a show and lets douche bags like O'Reilly prattle on because they have a market of idiots they need to appeal to. ABC runs puff pieces on Good Morning America because it warms the collective wrinkled old labia of the Baba Wawa-ites. All the major news stations still meander about that stupid whore in Alabama/Aruba three years later because a pretty rich white girl is worth more than the incredible disproportionate number of missing black and Hispanic children.

[The Heart Collector]

Fox IS politically biased. I mean, they circulate internal memos to propagate the bias.... it's not some fucking mystery or something.

[The Heart Collector]

CNN has especially been known for showing Democratic politicians in a positive light but tend to show mostly negative footage on Republicans. Sure they show the occasional John McCain holding a baby type thing but they show favoritism. Damn near every network has some sort of agenda, unfortunately, and they'll always leave out a little something here or exagerate something there. Nobody can just tell it like it is and that pisses me off.

This is a lie. The only reason John McCain, a deplorable politician, still has a career, is because the "liberal" media has created a completely false image around him that has nothing to do with reality.

Also, they show mostly negative footage of the Republicans because the Republicans are fucking awful, reprehensible human beings. It's common knowledge that the Republican Party is in disarray and that they've been losing Congress seats, and that the Bush administration has created an awful image for Republicans. The media didn't conjure this shit up. That's like saying the media is biased against Bush because they show him in a negative light. No fucking shit, that's because he is a bad president.

[MadsenOMC]

Good points Heart Collector. I would add that complaints of a liberal media bias are also hard to take seriously when former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan takes the media to task for being too easy on the WH during the run up to the war in Iraq.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/mcclellan-media.html

It seems to me that many people believe there is a liberal media bias simply because they have heard it repeated so often by Fox News and the Republican party in general. The old mantra that if something is said enough times people will start to believe it. But that is simply not the reality.

[Homyrrh]

Also, they show mostly negative footage of the Republicans because the Republicans are fucking awful, reprehensible human beings.

Good points Heart Collector.

:(

Where has the validity of this conversation gone? First someone starts making points supported by distant memories from a decade passed, then the refutations are supported with heinous generalizations?

Well, guess I'm just gonna post elsewhere.

[Badbird]

It doesn't matter who he's representing...This is what I mean about defending shit like this. Thanks for proving my point.



Uh, is this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGsHB7Hjpi4) what you are talking about? Because if so, you totally missed the point of what he was saying. He isn't saying he wished Dick Cheney was dead, he saying that in America we should be able to express that thought without recourse. It's called the First Amendment.

What he said and what this woman said are within two completely different contexts and aren't comparable at all. She is a paid commentator for a (supposed) news channel; he's a comedian hosting a talk show. She has the right to say what she did, but as a representative of a news organization, she should be fired.

If Pat Buchanan said today that we'd be better off if Hilary was assassinated, you better believe MSNBC would fire his ass tomorrow.

[Cop No. 633]

:(

Where has the validity of this conversation gone? First someone starts making points supported by distant memories from a decade passed, then the refutations are supported with heinous generalizations?

Well, guess I'm just gonna post elsewhere.

You're going to have to get used to Heart Collector. He puts forth a lot of passion in his posts.

As for heinous generalizations, I believe he's referring to the party in power in the white house. He's not saying every Republican is a killer. Let's face it, the Bush crime family has killed thousands of people because of their lack of proper governance, so it is fair to say they are responsible for those deaths. It's irresponsible to say they are not. Also, he pointed out in his post why the text in bold was said. They along with people like Oliver North have tainted the very word Republican, hence why people can equate many terrible things to that word.

But you have to stop equating yourself with the entire party. It's silly to do that. When people attack liberals or Democrats, it's no skin off my back because I may have a left leaning stance, but that doesn't mean I am the party and the party is me. We're all individuals here. We don't speak for anyone but ourselves, but we reserve the right to criticize what we think is wrong.

[Homyrrh]

You're going to have to get used to Heart Collector. He puts forth a lot of passion in his posts.

As for heinous generalizations, I believe he's referring to the party in power in the white house. He's not saying every Republican is a killer. Let's face it, the Bush crime family has killed thousands of people because of their lack of proper governance, so it is fair to say they are responsible for those deaths. It's irresponsible to say they are not. Also, he pointed out in his post why the text in bold was said. They along with people like Oliver North have tainted the very word Republican, hence why people can equate many terrible things to that word.

But you have to stop equating yourself with the entire party. It's silly to do that. When people attack liberals or Democrats, it's no skin off my back because I may have a left leaning stance, but that doesn't mean I am the party and the party is me. We're all individuals here. We don't speak for anyone but ourselves, but we reserve the right to criticize what we think is wrong.
Oh, I took no personal offense at all, and never do; I honestly consider myself somewhat of an independent conservative, apart from the GOP (regardless). But it was, and is, grossly bothersome that arguments like this become so distorted and personal. Regardless of my understanding of someone or the respective nature and/or passion of their posts, saying an entire political party consists of "fucking awful, reprehensible" human beings is ill-founded, ignorant, and altogether inexcusable, especially for someone who, in previous posts, has displayed a solid semblance of intelligence and political awareness.

In all, regardless of anyone's disdain for any group of people, it is inexcusable to make such a heinous comment. I can understand resent to any degree with a party or especially an administration, but it distinctly irks me that such things are said in reply to posts that almost as ignorant.

It's nothing to do with "passion". It's blatantantly insensible. I've disagreed with the majority of what THC posts for reasons of political conviction, but I consider him a human like myself. Why? I don't know him. Despite any partisanship of his, I cannot say he is a bad person and instead reply with a cool head and professional demeanor instead of letting personal feelings interrupt. I expect the same from anyone else, that a political discussion be personally objective, supportable and, primarily, that the same understanding I've seen on regular display here remain on the level.

[MadsenOMC]

:(

Where has the validity of this conversation gone? First someone starts making points supported by distant memories from a decade passed, then the refutations are supported with heinous generalizations?

Well, guess I'm just gonna post elsewhere.

Next time I will be more specific about the points I agree with, just for you. I hope that makes you happy. Rather than engage in the discussion, you spend an awful lot of time griping about other people's posts.

[MadsenOMC]

More liberal media bias.


CNN's Yellin: Network execs killed critical White House stories

On Wednesday night, CNN's Jessica Yellin talked to Anderson Cooper about Scott McClellan's tell-all memoir and agreed with the former press secretary that White House reporters "dropped the ball" during the run-up to war.

But Yellin went much further, revealing that news executives--presumably at ABC News, where she'd worked from July 2003 to August 2007--actively pushed her not do hard-hitting pieces on the Bush administration.

"The press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war presented in way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president's high approval ratings," Yellin said.

"And my own experience at the White House was that the higher the president's approval ratings, the more pressure I had from news executives--and I was not at this network at the time--but the more pressure I had from news executives to put on positive stories about the president, I think over time...."

But then a shocked Cooper jumped in, asking, "You had pressure from news executives to put on positive stories about the president?"

"Not in that exact.... They wouldn't say it in that way, but they would edit my pieces," Yellin said. "They would push me in different directions. They would turn down stories that were more critical, and try to put on pieces that were more positive. Yes, that was my experience."

[The Heart Collector]

:(

Where has the validity of this conversation gone? First someone starts making points supported by distant memories from a decade passed, then the refutations are supported with heinous generalizations?

Well, guess I'm just gonna post elsewhere.


Public opinion is that they are. They keep losing elections. They are in disarray, etc etc, their administration and values are being seen as ridiculous, their whole "but hes a LIBERAL!" shit doesn't work, etc.

This isn't just some generalization I'm making that Republicans aren't very well-liked now, it is pretty much a fact documented by:

1) public opinion
2) the elections they have lost in congress so far this year
3) their own words regarding the future of the party
4) poll numbers for congress elections in the next few months

Is every single Republican awful? No. But let's be honest for a moment, the majority of weird political scandals in the past few years come from Republicans. If there's a breaking sex scandal, odds are it's a republican. corruption scandal? odds are it's a republican.


The media talk about this because IT IS THERE. Every idiot asshole that tries to run a Congress campaign calling the opponent some dirty liberal associated with that *shhh*negro*shhh* Obama gets their ass handed to them in the election day. Every fucking moron that *accidentally* says Osama instead of Obama gets his/her ass booed to oblivion. Or in the most recent case, that moronic shill radio host that went on Hardball to spout his ultra partisan, well-coordinated republican "he's an appeaser" bullshit got laughed out of the show.

Furthermore, their policies are just awful and have affected the country negatively.


Generalization? Yes, I am giving you a brief generalization of the past eight years of pain.

[SpoonMan999]

ABC I believe actually has quite a few conservatives running it so that makes sense.

I brought up the Clinton and Bush Snr. comparison because they were the biggest issues I could think of off the top of my head where they showed bias. And I wasn't comparing the degree at which they lied I was comparing the criticism they received. In my Clinton showed immense disrespect for his position and the history of the oval office by having her blow him right there. Bush, on the other hand, saw no way out of a predicament but to raise taxes and did what he did because he thought it was the best way...yet Bush was the bad guy in his case according to most of the media.

Also, I've read Al Franken's book and just like any biased person in the media he says things in a way that makes his opinion seem like the only way, Michael Moore and Bill Mahr do the same thing. I've also read Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope, so yes I do listen to both sides of an argument but I realise going in neither side will give me the full story on their own.

[MadsenOMC]

He's right Homyrrh. The Republican party is in a state of disarray right now. Republicans themselves have been saying this more frequently lately, from Newt Gingrich to Peggy Noonan to George Will. Even Rupert Murdoch chimed in and predicts a landslide for Democrats in November.

[SpoonMan999]

[QUOTE=The Heart Collector;2765654]Is every single Republican awful? No. But let's be honest for a moment, the majority of weird political scandals in the past few years come from Republicans. If there's a breaking sex scandal, odds are it's a republican. corruption scandal? odds are it's a republican.QUOTE]

Show me all these Republican exclusive scandals? Last time I checked the two biggest sex scandals were Clinton and Kennedy.

[MadsenOMC]

I brought up the Clinton and Bush Snr. comparison because they were the biggest issues I could think of off the top of my head where they showed bias. And I wasn't comparing the degree at which they lied I was comparing the criticism they received. In my Clinton showed immense disrespect for his position and the history of the oval office by having her blow him right there. Bush, on the other hand, saw no way out of a predicament but to raise taxes and did what he did because he thought it was the best way...yet Bush was the bad guy in his case according to most of the media.

This proves nothing. You make a broad generalization and do nothing to back it up. Show me a clip or a news article that supports your claim of the media being kind to Clinton but overly critical of Bush. Otherwise this reeks of bullshit.

And the incidents you refer to happened quite a while ago. I was referring to the state of things right now. There is no liberal bias right now.

[MadsenOMC]

[QUOTE=The Heart Collector;2765654]Is every single Republican awful? No. But let's be honest for a moment, the majority of weird political scandals in the past few years come from Republicans. If there's a breaking sex scandal, odds are it's a republican. corruption scandal? odds are it's a republican.QUOTE]

Show me all these Republican exclusive scandals? Last time I checked the two biggest sex scandals were Clinton and Kennedy.

Dude there have been a ton of Republican scandals, from politicians tied to Jack Abramoff to Larry Craig to Ted Stevens. He didn't limit it to sex scandals. Scandals in general.

http://senate2008guru.blogspot.com/2007/08/republican-culture-of-corruption-2007.html

[SpoonMan999]

This proves nothing. You make a broad generalization and do nothing to back it up. Show me a clip or a news article that supports your claim of the media being kind to Clinton but overly critical of Bush. Otherwise this reeks of bullshit.

And the incidents you refer to happened quite a while ago. I was referring to the state of things right now. There is no liberal bias right now.

In another thread did you not say that all articles have some bias to them? And now you're claiming there is no liberal bias?

[MadsenOMC]

I was talking about articles written by newspaper columnists. Nice try though.

[SpoonMan999]

So newspapers are biased but TV isn't?

[MadsenOMC]

So newspapers are biased but TV isn't?

Are you intentionally being dense, or is it natural? I said newspaper columnists. The writers themselves. Not newspapers in general. Do you understand?

[Homyrrh]

Next time I will be more specific about the points I agree with, just for you. I hope that makes you happy. Rather than engage in the discussion, you spend an awful lot of time griping about other people's posts.
Yes, it would help if you specified what you're talking about.

Not sure the basis or relevance of that final comment either.
Public opinion is that they are. They keep losing elections. They are in disarray, etc etc, their administration and values are being seen as ridiculous, their whole "but hes a LIBERAL!" shit doesn't work, etc.

This isn't just some generalization I'm making that Republicans aren't very well-liked now, it is pretty much a fact documented by:

1) public opinion
2) the elections they have lost in congress so far this year
3) their own words regarding the future of the party
4) poll numbers for congress elections in the next few months

Is every single Republican awful? No. But let's be honest for a moment, the majority of weird political scandals in the past few years come from Republicans. If there's a breaking sex scandal, odds are it's a republican. corruption scandal? odds are it's a republican.


The media talk about this because IT IS THERE. Every idiot asshole that tries to run a Congress campaign calling the opponent some dirty liberal associated with that *shhh*negro*shhh* Obama gets their ass handed to them in the election day. Every fucking moron that *accidentally* says Osama instead of Obama gets his/her ass booed to oblivion. Or in the most recent case, that moronic shill radio host that went on Hardball to spout his ultra partisan, well-coordinated republican "he's an appeaser" bullshit got laughed out of the show.

Furthermore, their policies are just awful and have affected the country negatively.


Generalization? Yes, I am giving you a brief generalization of the past eight years of pain.
Eh, Mcgreevey and Spitzer were Democrats, as was the latter's no-as-scandalous, but still so, successor, Patterson. As was Clinton and the blow job (yeah I'd lie as a husband...but not under federal oath). Ultimately, I don't know how fair it is to say either party more scandalous than the other. It's sensible enough to say politicians in general are corrupt (though I can stomach a personal scandal, it's a bit more difficult when funds go missing...).

But please realize that making note that the GOP is essentially a mess is a world apart from calling people you don't personally know reprehensible or fucking awful, regardless of political affiliation. Are some Republicans pieces of shit? I'm sure they are. I'm sure some Democrats are as well. I don't think it helps the GOP, however, that the entire party image has, for time immemorial, been some grumpy, greedy, shady old white dudes in a smoky backroom listing opponents to "remove".

Radicals can be found on both ends. It's no mind of mien that anyone's subjective...that's what politics are about. But then again, this is politics and not personal qualities.

I definitely understand what you mean, THC, but I think you can acknowledge that you may have blurred or crossed the proverbial line.
He's right Homyrrh. The Republican party is in a state of disarray right now. Republicans themselves have been saying this more frequently lately, from Newt Gingrich to Peggy Noonan to George Will. Even Rupert Murdoch chimed in and predicts a landslide for Democrats in November.
Granted. As I mentioned above, I can see that as well. When a Republican adminstration has approval ratings in the 30% range, it shows poorly for the entire GOP and, sadly, the entire conservative platform.

And when my boy Rupey cedes defeat, well, then the party's fucked :D

Show me all these Republican exclusive scandals? Last time I checked the two biggest sex scandals were Clinton and Kennedy.
I'll be honest, Spoon. I appreciate your dedication to a cause , be it political or whatever, but getting stuck on points is the downfall of any argument. To be able to legitmately and substantially question greater causes, agendas, and, possibly, ideologies, is what validates one's stand.

In all, don't pick points like that to argue, especially when it was brought up that you've haven't supported your argument.

This proves nothing. You make a broad generalization and do nothing to back it up. Show me a clip or a news article that supports your claim of the media being kind to Clinton but overly critical of Bush. Otherwise this reeks of bullshit.

And the incidents you refer to happened quite a while ago. I was referring to the state of things right now. There is no liberal bias right now.

I'm confused; I thought that's exactly why you made that comment to me earlier (?).

On a general note, unspecific to the post, it's blatant that FOX is a conservative station. I also feel news outlets like the NY Times Co. or CNN have at least a mild, yet somewhat distinguishable. I see no legitimate problem, as this is how news is given. Like I said, I watch CNN, read the Times, etc. (look at the sources for all the articles I reference), BECAUSE I know the ultimate product of my own biases and that of the certain media I get news from will equal an objective experience.

Is the media as a whole liberal? No, of course not, just as all Republicans aren't dirty shitbags. For every NY Times, there's an NY Post.

[Homyrrh]

In another thread did you not say that all articles have some bias to them? And now you're claiming there is no liberal bias?

I was talking about articles written by newspaper columnists. Nice try though.

Spoon, nothign personal, here's what I mean by not getting annoyingly particular. I was part of this exchange.

He posted an OpEd piece and I mentioned it'd be appreciated if he noted it was inherently subjective. As I remember, we both agreed that columnists are, by name and nature, biased.

[MadsenOMC]

Is the media as a whole liberal? No, of course not, just as all Republicans aren't dirty shitbags. For every NY Times, there's an NY Post.

Exactly.

[MadsenOMC]

For the record, Yellin worked at MSNBC and not ABC when the story pressure happened.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/29/tv-news-under-the-microscope/

[SpoonMan999]

Firstly, I never said the media as a whole was liberal I mentioned a specific station. And if the columnists are biased...then how is the paper not? If they're columns are being published then that column is biased...and if the columns in the paper are biased how is the entire publication not biased? I don't mean every person on staff is leaning the same way I'm saying everything you read has some sort of idea the writer favors. It will be reflected in the writing, this is why people can't sit and watch one station and read one paper and say they know the entire issue inside and out, which a lot of people do. I don't think you guys are understanding what I'm saying, I hope this clears it up.

And Madsen, when we're talking politics what's with the personal insults? I haven't done anything to offend you and I'd appreciate if you'd stop being a douche about it, I'm trying to have a friendly debate.

[MadsenOMC]

The paper I read regularly tries to publish columnists with varying political persuasions.

It was an honest question. I felt like I was being extremely clear, and I wasn't sure if you were intentionally misunderstanding me.

[Homyrrh]

Firstly, I never said the media as a whole was liberal I mentioned a specific station. And if the columnists are biased...then how is the paper not? If they're columns are being published then that column is biased...and if the columns in the paper are biased how is the entire publication not biased? I don't mean every person on staff is leaning the same way I'm saying everything you read has some sort of idea the writer favors. It will be reflected in the writing, this is why people can't sit and watch one station and read one paper and say they know the entire issue inside and out, which a lot of people do. I don't think you guys are understanding what I'm saying, I hope this clears it up.

And Madsen, when we're talking politics what's with the personal insults? I haven't done anything to offend you and I'd appreciate if you'd stop being a douche about it, I'm trying to have a friendly debate.
1. THat's incredibly ignorant. Even the NY Times, a renowned liberal news establishment, has a conservative columnist. Think of it as a DVD that has that disclaimer that the "views expressed herein on commentary and interviews" are not the beliefs of the studio. A paper will hold onto a columnist if he wins awards, gets subscriptions, etc.

2. This may be right, but you shouldn't call someone a "douche" after asking them not to become personal. It's a negative stimulus.

[SpoonMan999]

1. THat's incredibly ignorant. Even the NY Times, a renowned liberal news establishment, has a conservative columnist. Think of it as a DVD that has that disclaimer that the "views expressed herein on commentary and interviews" are not the beliefs of the studio. A paper will hold onto a columnist if he wins awards, gets subscriptions, etc.

2. This may be right, but you shouldn't call someone a "douche" after asking them not to become personal. It's a negative stimulus.

I did specificaly say that not necessarily everyone on staff shares that view. Though, if they have one conservative columnist that doesn't really balance things.

Look, the point I'm trying to make is you can't just read something and accept that that's the way it is and nobody can tell you diferent. Whether it's hardcore conservatives with Fox News or a liberal with CNN. It doesn't matter, everyone has a little bit of bias in them.

[MadsenOMC]

I agree with your take on media analysis. It is important. I don't know of many newspapers that have a single liberal or conservative columnist. Maybe the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, but then they balance each other out.

[Homyrrh]

I did specificaly say that not necessarily everyone on staff shares that view. Though, if they have one conservative columnist that doesn't really balance things.

Look, the point I'm trying to make is you can't just read something and accept that that's the way it is and nobody can tell you diferent. Whether it's hardcore conservatives with Fox News or a liberal with CNN. It doesn't matter, everyone has a little bit of bias in them.
I'm trying to establish that a newspaper isn't biased JUST because its columnists are. You're right, you can't read something just for what it is, but just because the columnist is blatantly pushing an agenda doesn't mean that his/her respective publication is.

[SpoonMan999]

I'm trying to establish that a newspaper isn't biased JUST because its columnists are. You're right, you can't read something just for what it is, but just because the columnist is blatantly pushing an agenda doesn't mean that his/her respective publication is.

I don't know, when a publication has an abundance of one though it kind of says other wise. Sure they may have a few of an opposing view writing for them but many times you will see the networks interests represented by who they hire.

[Jon Lyrik]

More liberal media bias.


CNN's Yellin: Network execs killed critical White House stories

On Wednesday night, CNN's Jessica Yellin talked to Anderson Cooper about Scott McClellan's tell-all memoir and agreed with the former press secretary that White House reporters "dropped the ball" during the run-up to war.

But Yellin went much further, revealing that news executives--presumably at ABC News, where she'd worked from July 2003 to August 2007--actively pushed her not do hard-hitting pieces on the Bush administration.

"The press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war presented in way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president's high approval ratings," Yellin said.

"And my own experience at the White House was that the higher the president's approval ratings, the more pressure I had from news executives--and I was not at this network at the time--but the more pressure I had from news executives to put on positive stories about the president, I think over time...."

But then a shocked Cooper jumped in, asking, "You had pressure from news executives to put on positive stories about the president?"

"Not in that exact.... They wouldn't say it in that way, but they would edit my pieces," Yellin said. "They would push me in different directions. They would turn down stories that were more critical, and try to put on pieces that were more positive. Yes, that was my experience."

Okay, will people now shut the fuck up about media bias? Jeez...

[Homyrrh]

Seems less a refutation of bias than a confirmation that networks will tell people (At the time: patriotism, decent approval ratings, etc.) what they want to hear for viewership.

[MadsenOMC]

Seems less a refutation of bias than a confirmation that networks will tell people (At the time: patriotism, decent approval ratings, etc.) what they want to hear for viewership.

Which is exactly what I have been saying all along. They care about ratings, not pushing a specific political viewpoint.