Display for us your many, many studies, reports, hell even anecdotal information about Fox News...
Please...
Nick
You'd make me cite "George W. Bush is the President."
Are you honestly saying that there is a fine line between Fox News and Fox Commentary...? That Fox News Channel doesn't seek to intertwine the two? This is not an objective news channel, remember.
There is no LIBERAL media...that's a MYTH. There's certainly liberal op-ed writers...and conservative ones too... but are you going to tell me that the editor's and owners of all the papers are liberals? Do you think the writers and reporters matter.
"It will be interesting to see how much of this (smear tactics) the Republicans can perpetrate before their tactics start to backfire. But their real problem is that they don't know any other way to win an election -- and their sinking numbers could soon give rise to panic. The more they attack Clark now, the more obvious it will become that he is the nominee of their nightmares. "
I like how he was characterized as a "4 star general that is Democrat. That is on a political rarity scale somewhere between black Republican and hobo mayor!"
He is either A) hoping to be Dean's or someone else's Vice
hoping to get elected NEXT year
C) hoping to get elected but I think it's too late
I like him. Gilsch I hear you. I like McCain too even though I'm so far left I'm socialist. he's just a good guy, I might disagree with some of his ideology but I respect him. SDW your post, is that a tease? I am pissed you got BR banned, I liked him.
Dem Dream Team '04: Dean with Clark as Vice. Or Vice Versa?
Scott you are incredibly ignorant! Read Lies and the Lying Liars that Tell Them by Al Franken. Stop talking out of your ass I would assume you were a troll if you weren't here so long. Prove it.
Liberal Media...yeah. There are chapters about that in Al Franken's book. Since you took it upon yourself to bring it up why don't you prove it.
Back on topic. I think Clark will have to endure an incredible amount of mud slinging because the RNC is truly frightened of him. It's obvious to me by the shear amount of "flashback" articles being dug out of the Kosovo conflict..."Wesley Clark almost starts nuclear war with Russia!"...and it's only the second day of his candidacy!
In some ways I'm glad Clark is taking the spotlight because it gives Howard Dean a respite that he truly needs. Dean needs another transition moment to regroup, plan and then get back out there. This is that opportunity to get out from the scrutiny Carl Cameron at Fox News has been giving him (or at least trying).
We'll see how well Clark can overcome his own internal machinations and thin skin. He's untested politically. He has a lot of Teflon surfaces that help shield him from "soft on terrorism", "can't protect America", "he's not from the south" criticism. Hopefully he can overcome his own weaknesses by applying some of that military diligence to fight his own knee-jerk compulsion. Should be interesting to watch over the next year or so.
Back off topic. Ever notice that the so-called liberal media never puts the magnifying glass on any of our current generals or questions their motives, especially during war time? Ever noticed that the so-called conservative media doesn't hesitate for a moment to publicly scrutinize and attempt to discredit Gen. Clark during Kosovo? Why is that, I wonder? Was it because a liberal was in the white house? I believe so. But the flip-side doesn't cut it, does it? Because when a conservative is in the white house, any criticism of the war, or its generals, would be ferociously attacked as "un American - blame America first!"
I wish CNN, NYT, Wash' Post, LA Times, Miami Herald, every Boston news paper, every San Fran' news paper .... would come out and say it's liberal.
Yawn. Do you ever actually read any of these publications or do you just take Pat Buchanan's word on everything? I cannot comment on the LA Times or Miami Herald (I don't read them) but the NYT and Boston Globe are centrist editorially and have commentators that go both ways. CNN and the Post can only be described as liberal in Bizarro world.
I'm starting to wonder if maybe the problem is just that right-wingers who perpetuate "the shrill cry of 'Liberal Bias! Liberal Bias!'" are so far out there on the extreme right that everything short of newsmax.com looks like it's run by a buncha dirty commies.
Yawn. Do you ever actually read any of these publications or do you just take Pat Buchanan's word on everything? I cannot comment on the LA Times or Miami Herald (I don't read them) but the NYT and Boston Globe are centrist editorially and have commentators that go both ways. CNN and the Post can only be described as liberal in Bizarro world.
I'm starting to wonder if maybe the problem is just that right-wingers who perpetuate "the shrill cry of 'Liberal Bias! Liberal Bias!'" are so far out there on the extreme right that everything short of newsmax.com looks like it's run by a buncha dirty commies.
You'd make me cite "George W. Bush is the President."
Are you honestly saying that there is a fine line between Fox News and Fox Commentary...? That Fox News Channel doesn't seek to intertwine the two? This is not an objective news channel, remember.
I could ask you to cite Bush is president, except for then you would go off on a diatribe about Florida and stealing the election, all without any proof of course.
Or you could just go to say www.whitehouse.gov and show my that Bush is indeed the president.
It isn't like I ask you to cite everything. You cite nothing. Fox News is conservative according to you. In fact you claim it is obviously so. Don't you think all those academics would have spit out something by now backing that?
I mean even something like this might at least elevate the level of conversation.
Umm... you say you don't watch Fox News... it's not about proving it... just wath it... and or read any of the pieces written by thier "stars"... Hannity, O'Reilly...
I could ask you to cite Bush is president, except for then you would go off on a diatribe about Florida and stealing the election, all without any proof of course.
Or you could just go to say www.whitehouse.gov and show my that Bush is indeed the president.
It isn't like I ask you to cite everything. You cite nothing. Fox News is conservative according to you. In fact you claim it is obviously so. Don't you think all those academics would have spit out something by now backing that?
I mean even something like this might at least elevate the level of conversation.
Come on Shawn, dig a bit.
Nick
I can't believe we're having this discussion! It's like every couple of months you FORGET. Fox News is conservative. Get over it, already.
Yup... keep watching Fox and get fed exactly what you want to hear. The wars goin' great. The economy is getting better... really. No Child will be left behind...
I miss "slimey" Bill... balanced budgets... millions of new jobs... the Patriots winning the superbowl... Hypocritcal self-righteous "moral" republicans imploding (too many to even mention)... the good ole days.
A recent Poll said 41% of americans intend to vote against Bush... and 29% for him. I guess you should enjoy these great times while you can. How did that tax break work for ya? Did you get the "average" $1000? Or were you part of the 31% who didn't get anything?
It amazes me that you can actually believe what you just said. Bush's overall approval is still above 50%. The economy IS getting MUCH better, and I am in public education so I can tell you that while schools don't like the new Act, it is definitely working. Imagine...accountability.
Let us not forget that the balanced budget was due to a HUGE tax increase on the middle class...and an economy driven by the net bubble. Tell me again what Clinton did spefically to help the economy? And "Republicans imploding"? How's that, exactly? I suppose your definition of "imploding" is winning the House in 94 and not ceding it since then. I suppose the Republicans taking the Senate in 2000 and then regaining it AGAIN in 2002 (despite Jeffords immoral swtiching of affiliation after the election) is an "implosion".
What's amazing is the Democratic Party STILL DOES NOT SEE WHAT A DISASTER IT IS RIGHT NOW. I am just blown away by that. There is no candidate, including Clark that is going to be able to take Bush down. I'm not saying Bush is unbeatable at this point, but he is when compared to the field. A recent poll shows him at least 10 points ahead of EVERY single Democratic hopeful...including Gore and Hillary Clinton. The Dems are panicking because Dean is in the lead and he's too liberal to win.
Clark is their best choice, I suppose. The problem with him is he's been wrong on a lot of things (like predicting huge numbers of casualties in Iraq...even though we've lost about as many as we would have in training) and he's got little to no charisma. He also got that Gray Davis shit-eating look to an extent. We'll see what happens though.
(BTW, Hillary won't win because her unfavorables among WOMEN are too high...not to mention men. You guys should listen to Dick Morris on that point. He would know, considering he advised Bill in 96.)
Yawn. Do you ever actually read any of these publications or do you just take Pat Buchanan's word on everything? I cannot comment on the LA Times or Miami Herald (I don't read them) but the NYT and Boston Globe are centrist editorially and have commentators that go both ways. CNN and the Post can only be described as liberal in Bizarro world.
I'm starting to wonder if maybe the problem is just that right-wingers who perpetuate "the shrill cry of 'Liberal Bias! Liberal Bias!'" are so far out there on the extreme right that everything short of newsmax.com looks like it's run by a buncha dirty commies.
You can't be reading the NYT op-ed page, nor the news page nor the obit's or .... They slander the president with an egregious misquote and don't have the balls to correct it. NYT "centrist editorially"? You gotta be ****ing kidding with that? Do you read it? I'm not sure you do.
There used to be a great web site called SmaterTimes that would list all the errors, bias, slant and news rigging in the NYT every day. Unfortunately it's no longer updated.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
Tis ShawnJ, Fox News expert!
Display for us your many, many studies, reports, hell even anecdotal information about Fox News...
Please...
Nick
Are you honestly saying that there is a fine line between Fox News and Fox Commentary...? That Fox News Channel doesn't seek to intertwine the two? This is not an objective news channel, remember.
Does James Carville run a news network?
Nope. But Roger Ailes does.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...527982-5057501
"It will be interesting to see how much of this (smear tactics) the Republicans can perpetrate before their tactics start to backfire. But their real problem is that they don't know any other way to win an election -- and their sinking numbers could soon give rise to panic. The more they attack Clark now, the more obvious it will become that he is the nominee of their nightmares. "
He is either A) hoping to be Dean's or someone else's Vice
C) hoping to get elected but I think it's too late
I like him. Gilsch I hear you. I like McCain too even though I'm so far left I'm socialist. he's just a good guy, I might disagree with some of his ideology but I respect him. SDW your post, is that a tease? I am pissed you got BR banned, I liked him.
Dem Dream Team '04: Dean with Clark as Vice. Or Vice Versa?
Liberal Media...yeah. There are chapters about that in Al Franken's book. Since you took it upon yourself to bring it up why don't you prove it.
I liked the reviews that were posted too it.
Sounded like the liberals loved it.
Coulter. Hannity. Rush... they say the media is liberal... is that God's word?
In some ways I'm glad Clark is taking the spotlight because it gives Howard Dean a respite that he truly needs. Dean needs another transition moment to regroup, plan and then get back out there. This is that opportunity to get out from the scrutiny Carl Cameron at Fox News has been giving him (or at least trying).
We'll see how well Clark can overcome his own internal machinations and thin skin. He's untested politically. He has a lot of Teflon surfaces that help shield him from "soft on terrorism", "can't protect America", "he's not from the south" criticism. Hopefully he can overcome his own weaknesses by applying some of that military diligence to fight his own knee-jerk compulsion. Should be interesting to watch over the next year or so.
Back off topic. Ever notice that the so-called liberal media never puts the magnifying glass on any of our current generals or questions their motives, especially during war time? Ever noticed that the so-called conservative media doesn't hesitate for a moment to publicly scrutinize and attempt to discredit Gen. Clark during Kosovo? Why is that, I wonder? Was it because a liberal was in the white house? I believe so. But the flip-side doesn't cut it, does it? Because when a conservative is in the white house, any criticism of the war, or its generals, would be ferociously attacked as "un American - blame America first!"
Originally posted by Scott
I wish CNN, NYT, Wash' Post, LA Times, Miami Herald, every Boston news paper, every San Fran' news paper .... would come out and say it's liberal.
Yawn. Do you ever actually read any of these publications or do you just take Pat Buchanan's word on everything? I cannot comment on the LA Times or Miami Herald (I don't read them) but the NYT and Boston Globe are centrist editorially and have commentators that go both ways. CNN and the Post can only be described as liberal in Bizarro world.
I'm starting to wonder if maybe the problem is just that right-wingers who perpetuate "the shrill cry of 'Liberal Bias! Liberal Bias!'" are so far out there on the extreme right that everything short of newsmax.com looks like it's run by a buncha dirty commies.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Yawn. Do you ever actually read any of these publications or do you just take Pat Buchanan's word on everything? I cannot comment on the LA Times or Miami Herald (I don't read them) but the NYT and Boston Globe are centrist editorially and have commentators that go both ways. CNN and the Post can only be described as liberal in Bizarro world.
I'm starting to wonder if maybe the problem is just that right-wingers who perpetuate "the shrill cry of 'Liberal Bias! Liberal Bias!'" are so far out there on the extreme right that everything short of newsmax.com looks like it's run by a buncha dirty commies.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Are you honestly saying that there is a fine line between Fox News and Fox Commentary...? That Fox News Channel doesn't seek to intertwine the two? This is not an objective news channel, remember.
I could ask you to cite Bush is president, except for then you would go off on a diatribe about Florida and stealing the election, all without any proof of course.
Or you could just go to say www.whitehouse.gov and show my that Bush is indeed the president.
It isn't like I ask you to cite everything. You cite nothing. Fox News is conservative according to you. In fact you claim it is obviously so. Don't you think all those academics would have spit out something by now backing that?
I mean even something like this might at least elevate the level of conversation.
Come on Shawn, dig a bit.
Nick
Originally posted by Scott
Prove it.
Franken already did.
I can't believe fox is still on the air. what a complete joke.
Originally posted by msantti
I guess that book that was linked at Amazon is gods word that media does not have a liberal bias then?
I liked the reviews that were posted too it.
Sounded like the liberals loved it.
They loved it because he pulled out the transcripts. Deal with it.
the latest by O'Reilly is hysterical by the way.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97670,00.html
O'reilly=Humble?
Cheapshots? Only in his humble mind.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
the latest by O'Reilly is hysterical by the way.
I can't believe this guy is still on the air. What a joke.
Originally posted by trumptman
I could ask you to cite Bush is president, except for then you would go off on a diatribe about Florida and stealing the election, all without any proof of course.
Or you could just go to say www.whitehouse.gov and show my that Bush is indeed the president.
It isn't like I ask you to cite everything. You cite nothing. Fox News is conservative according to you. In fact you claim it is obviously so. Don't you think all those academics would have spit out something by now backing that?
I mean even something like this might at least elevate the level of conversation.
Come on Shawn, dig a bit.
Nick
I can't believe we're having this discussion! It's like every couple of months you FORGET. Fox News is conservative. Get over it, already.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Yup... keep watching Fox and get fed exactly what you want to hear. The wars goin' great. The economy is getting better... really. No Child will be left behind...
I miss "slimey" Bill... balanced budgets... millions of new jobs... the Patriots winning the superbowl... Hypocritcal self-righteous "moral" republicans imploding (too many to even mention)... the good ole days.
A recent Poll said 41% of americans intend to vote against Bush... and 29% for him. I guess you should enjoy these great times while you can. How did that tax break work for ya? Did you get the "average" $1000? Or were you part of the 31% who didn't get anything?
It amazes me that you can actually believe what you just said. Bush's overall approval is still above 50%. The economy IS getting MUCH better, and I am in public education so I can tell you that while schools don't like the new Act, it is definitely working. Imagine...accountability.
Let us not forget that the balanced budget was due to a HUGE tax increase on the middle class...and an economy driven by the net bubble. Tell me again what Clinton did spefically to help the economy? And "Republicans imploding"? How's that, exactly? I suppose your definition of "imploding" is winning the House in 94 and not ceding it since then. I suppose the Republicans taking the Senate in 2000 and then regaining it AGAIN in 2002 (despite Jeffords immoral swtiching of affiliation after the election) is an "implosion".
What's amazing is the Democratic Party STILL DOES NOT SEE WHAT A DISASTER IT IS RIGHT NOW. I am just blown away by that. There is no candidate, including Clark that is going to be able to take Bush down. I'm not saying Bush is unbeatable at this point, but he is when compared to the field. A recent poll shows him at least 10 points ahead of EVERY single Democratic hopeful...including Gore and Hillary Clinton. The Dems are panicking because Dean is in the lead and he's too liberal to win.
Clark is their best choice, I suppose. The problem with him is he's been wrong on a lot of things (like predicting huge numbers of casualties in Iraq...even though we've lost about as many as we would have in training) and he's got little to no charisma. He also got that Gray Davis shit-eating look to an extent. We'll see what happens though.
(BTW, Hillary won't win because her unfavorables among WOMEN are too high...not to mention men. You guys should listen to Dick Morris on that point. He would know, considering he advised Bill in 96.)
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Yawn. Do you ever actually read any of these publications or do you just take Pat Buchanan's word on everything? I cannot comment on the LA Times or Miami Herald (I don't read them) but the NYT and Boston Globe are centrist editorially and have commentators that go both ways. CNN and the Post can only be described as liberal in Bizarro world.
I'm starting to wonder if maybe the problem is just that right-wingers who perpetuate "the shrill cry of 'Liberal Bias! Liberal Bias!'" are so far out there on the extreme right that everything short of newsmax.com looks like it's run by a buncha dirty commies.
You can't be reading the NYT op-ed page, nor the news page nor the obit's or .... They slander the president with an egregious misquote and don't have the balls to correct it. NYT "centrist editorially"? You gotta be ****ing kidding with that? Do you read it? I'm not sure you do.
There used to be a great web site called SmaterTimes that would list all the errors, bias, slant and news rigging in the NYT every day. Unfortunately it's no longer updated.