So much for objectivity
You know people here sometimes discredit sources because they claim they are too liberal or too conservative. Likewise they will claim there ties and agendas between various groups that are known even when they can't be proven.
However in my book this just takes the cake.
Do not look at the man behind the curtain.
I understand that some claim Fox News is this or Rush Limbaugh that. However neither was appointed/annoited by the party and then had lawmakers actively fundraise to support the show?!?
Don't you think this crosses a few too many lines?
Nick
However in my book this just takes the cake.
Do not look at the man behind the curtain.
Quote:
Ed Schultz, who earlier considered running for governor, has been tapped by national Democratic leaders for a talk show to start in January.
Democratic lawmakers in Washington are raising money for the show, and Democrats have pledged about $1.8 million over two years to get it off the ground, Schultz said Monday. He said a half-dozen stations are looking at whether to carry it.
"The Democrats are getting the tar beat out of them constantly by Limbaugh and Hannity, and they feel they don't have a platform," Schultz said. "There's this conservative mantra that's being jammed down the throats of the American people, and the other side of the story is not being told."
Ed Schultz, who earlier considered running for governor, has been tapped by national Democratic leaders for a talk show to start in January.
Democratic lawmakers in Washington are raising money for the show, and Democrats have pledged about $1.8 million over two years to get it off the ground, Schultz said Monday. He said a half-dozen stations are looking at whether to carry it.
"The Democrats are getting the tar beat out of them constantly by Limbaugh and Hannity, and they feel they don't have a platform," Schultz said. "There's this conservative mantra that's being jammed down the throats of the American people, and the other side of the story is not being told."
I understand that some claim Fox News is this or Rush Limbaugh that. However neither was appointed/annoited by the party and then had lawmakers actively fundraise to support the show?!?
Don't you think this crosses a few too many lines?
Nick
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
I understand that some claim Fox News is this or Rush Limbaugh that. However neither was appointed/annoited by the party and then had lawmakers actively fundraise to support the show?!?
Don't you think this crosses a few too many lines?
Nick
Crosses lines for what?
Originally posted by pensieve
If the White House can censor search engines, the DNC can do whatever they want.
if this guy can make money doing this, good for him. if he sucks, it won't last.
If he starts off as being open, and doesn't just push his view down your throat or else your stupid, then he won't make it. Look at his competition every outlet does it, except for some CNN, but it seems as if news brought to us by AP is like its telling us its just that way take it or leave it
I guess only conservative people really listen to the radio and read the newspaper really. Really in this country it seems like the only people who listen to advertising, are conservatives. I guess the liberals are too busy giving their money away or something
Nick
Originally posted by pensieve
Nope. It's a free country. If the White House can censor search engines,
Er... you mean the robot.txt files that anyone is free to put on their websites to keep the search engine from indexing that info?
Yeah, that's real censorship of the engine.
You may not agree with it (I'm not sure I do - I believe in a transparent and accountable government), but come on... it's not like they're going out to the search engines and removing anything they don't like that exists *anywhere*. *That* would be censorship. No, they're just voluntarily not offering up any of *their* information. Last I checked, that'd fall under privacy issues. Jeez.
Originally posted by pensieve
Nope. It's a free country. If the White House can censor search engines, the DNC can do whatever they want. They are a political GROUP after all. They have an agenda. Now if an individual politician were doing it, that would be different.
No one ever disputed whether the country was free or not. No one's trying to ague that they should be stopped or not. Congratulations, you won the point not being made.
Originally posted by trumptman
You know people here sometimes discredit sources because they claim they are too liberal or too conservative. Likewise they will claim there ties and agendas between various groups that are known even when they can't be proven.
However in my book this just takes the cake.
Do not look at the man behind the curtain.
I understand that some claim Fox News is this or Rush Limbaugh that. However neither was appointed/annoited by the party and then had lawmakers actively fundraise to support the show?!?
Don't you think this crosses a few too many lines?
Nick
I'm not sure what to think of it. In the 60s and early 70s conservatives were basically locked out of the big three networks - the only source for television programming. Add PBS to that era, and it was dim (Firing Line by WFBuckley being the ONLY conservative outlet)...
Talk radio existed then, somewhat evenly divided between liberal and conservative. Anyone remember Joe Pine (and Downy Sr.)?
A couple of things happended. First, a lot of people rejected the liberal mindset and became more conservative. Second, cable opened up more alot more opportunity for conservatives who had been shut out.
Talk radio, in response to shifting sympathies, changed. The guys and gals who are in talk radio worked there way up through the business, without political funding. Limbaugh is, what he is, because he made MONEY!!! - not because some political hacks backed him.
This new guy has "potential" and coming from a conservative market means he can relate to the ordinary concerns of Americans (imagine a liberal host from SF - what a disaster).
Still, it also opens a new chapter in American politics - the direct purchase by the parties of their own journalists. Legal, but very weird...
Originally posted by Kickaha
Er... you mean the robot.txt files that anyone is free to put on their websites to keep the search engine from indexing that info?
Yeah, that's real censorship of the engine.
You may not agree with it (I'm not sure I do - I believe in a transparent and accountable government), but come on... it's not like they're going out to the search engines and removing anything they don't like that exists *anywhere*. *That* would be censorship. No, they're just voluntarily not offering up any of *their* information. Last I checked, that'd fall under privacy issues. Jeez.
The irony of my statement eludes you. I won't get into it, but suffice it to say that I don't believe either are wrong.
Originally posted by Scott
No one ever disputed whether the country was free or not. No one's trying to ague that they should be stopped or not. Congratulations, you won the point not being made.
Umm, see my post right above this one.
Originally posted by Scott
No one ever disputed whether the country was free or not. No one's trying to ague that they should be stopped or not. Congratulations, you won the point not being made.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Ah I see so the next time someone in this thread discredits an idea for no other reason than it is from this source or that source I will understand that no one here desires objectivity even while deploring other outlets as partial.
Nick
The Democratic Party sponsored radio show is obviously biased. What's your point? That it's bad that a liberal show comes out and says it's a liberal show? Fox News should give that sentiment a try...
The problem is obviously biased news outlets that claim objectivity...especially ones that do so rather...shall i say.... prominently... *ahem* Fox News *cough* Fair and Balanced *cough* We Report. You Decide.
You really have no point here because the show is obviously liberal and obviously connected to the Democratic Party. If anyone tries to hide those connections or leanings...that's a different story.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
The Democratic Party sponsored radio show is obviously biased. What's your point? That it's bad that a liberal show comes out and says it's a liberal show? Fox News should give that sentiment a try...
The problem is obviously biased news outlets that claim objectivity...especially ones that do so rather...shall i say.... prominently... *ahem* Fox News *cough* Fair and Balanced *cough* We Report. You Decide.
You really have no point here because the show is obviously liberal and obviously connected to the Democratic Party. If anyone tries to hide those connections or leanings...that's a different story.
My point is that it is funded propaganda that will pose as a regular talk show. It's clear you don't mind propaganda as long as it promotes what you prefer to hear.
Fox News has been declared conservative by you and others. I haven't read a study that showed say the number of favorable vs. unfavorable stories on say Republican vs. Democratic issues.
You know like here.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
My point is that it is funded propaganda that will pose as a regular talk show. It's clear you don't mind propaganda as long as it promotes what you prefer to hear.
Fox News has been declared conservative by you and others. I haven't read a study that showed say the number of favorable vs. unfavorable stories on say Republican vs. Democratic issues.
You know like here.
You're making a couple of assumptions there. Maybe we should wait until the show actually airs? And FoxISconservative. I don't think a study is needed to prove that. The key is not "favorable vs. unfavorable stories on say Republican vs. Democratic issues". It's the spin put to said stories and the political leanings of a lot, if not most of the personalities.
Originally posted by trumptman
Fox News has been declared conservative by you and others. I haven't read a study that showed say the number of favorable vs. unfavorable stories on say Republican vs. Democratic issues.
I'm puzzled by your insistence that there is some question as to Fox's conservative slant. Have you perhaps been struck in the head recently, by say a 2x4? Some things are evident on the face of them, and feigning ignorance of the obvious because "there hasn't been a study" (not sure what you thought you were showing by linking to a right-wing "media watchdog" site) isn't very persuasive.
By the way, it is my impression that most posters here take exception to a lot of the rhetoric on the various right-wing pundit fests because of their habit of ignoring inconvenient facts, amplifying half-truths and out-right fabrications as evidence of the degeneracy of "liberals" and the tactic of abusing and shouting down people who disagree, not because "the source is biased".
EDIT: Yeah, and what Gilsch said.
Originally posted by Gilsch
You're making a couple of assumptions there. Maybe we should wait until the show actually airs? And FoxISconservative. I don't think a study is needed to prove that. The key is not "favorable vs. unfavorable stories on say Republican vs. Democratic issues". It's the spin put to said stories and the political leanings of a lot, if not most of the personalities.
Again there is the claim that Fox is conservative. However claims without evidence are just unsubstanciated claims. Repeat them enough and they will be true. So far I know Fox has run two Democratic debates this year versus how many for CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS?
I don't really watch cable news but I do browse CNN, ABC and FoxNews websites for stories. Fox is the only site I see that has the raw data of the story often next to the reports written story. So if I want to read the actual transcripts of what was said and not just select quotes, I can.
Likewise there are often links to the reported organizations, or a minimum links to searches for those organizations. Lastly Fox most often has side panels with loads of objective information (unless say the population of Iraq for example has become partisan). CNN usually just has videos that they want me to subscribe to Real to see as does ABCNews.
It is the "spin" as you mention that makes a story favorable or unfavorable. The researchers are smart enough to read which labels and views are attached to which views.
Nick
Originally posted by addabox
I'm puzzled by your insistence that there is some question as to Fox's conservative slant. Have you perhaps been struck in the head recently, by say a 2x4? Some things are evident on the face of them, and feigning ignorance of the obvious because "there hasn't been a study" (not sure what you thought you were showing by linking to a right-wing "media watchdog" site) isn't very persuasive.
By the way, it is my impression that most posters here take exception to a lot of the rhetoric on the various right-wing pundit fests because of their habit of ignoring inconvenient facts, amplifying half-truths and out-right fabrications as evidence of the degeneracy of "liberals" and the tactic of abusing and shouting down people who disagree, not because "the source is biased".
EDIT: Yeah, and what Gilsch said.
I see, having a questioning nature = hit with a 2x4. I simply asked for proof of the assertion. If it is as obvious as you say then the proof should be easy to produce.
Likewise you dismiss an entire website, loaded with clear information about media bias just because you declare it "right wing." It shows exactly the type of bias that Gilsh claims Fox participates in. It shows how small labels attached to labels attached to people affect perceptions. It goes into the outright obvious bias. However it also determines tone and things like omission of information, letting spin go unanswered with follow up questions, and so forth.
As for all the latter claims, I assure you that I read plenty of claims relating to them on the left.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
[B]Again there is the claim that Fox is conservative. However claims without evidence are just unsubstanciated claims. Repeat them enough and they will be true. So far I know Fox has run two Democratic debates this year versus how many for CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS?
That means nothing. I could say the same thing about you providing claims without evidence. Are you saying that because Fox has run two Democratic debates they're not conservative?
Likewise there are often links to the reported organizations, or a minimum links to searches for those organizations. Lastly Fox most often has side panels with loads of objective information (unless say the population of Iraq for example has become partisan). CNN usually just has videos that they want me to subscribe to Real to see as does ABCNews.
And other news organizations don't provide links? Come on.
It is the "spin" as you mention that makes a story favorable or unfavorable.
Bingo.
The researchers are smart enough to read which labels and views are attached to which views.
So are the viewers. Well, maybe not the Fox viewers lol.
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/new...aq/6918170.htm
I originally saw the article on MSNBC a few weeks ago but I'm too lazy to look for it. A quick Google found that one and many others about the study.
Maybe you should answer these questions. Is Murdoch a liberal? Are most of the personalities with shows on Fox liberal? It's not that difficult.