08 Nov 2010, 10:56 pm
09 Nov 2010, 1:39 am
09 Nov 2010, 1:55 am
Inuyasha wrote:
bee33 wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
The so called "liberal media" is a myth.
I agree with you there.
The majority of the media is liberal if you look at information concerning their voting patterns.
Irrelevant point. It wouldn't matter if most journalists were members of the Workers World Party unless they were given free reign to state their opinions. Hell, O'Donnell claims to be a "socialist" and yet spares no opportunity he gets for criticizing the Democratic Party for becoming "too liberal" to win. I don't chare weather the corporate media is staffed by masochistic nominal leftists or ideological Republicans, it still presisently shifts the overton window right.
Inuyasha wrote:
Not to mention Chris Mathews getting shivers up his leg whenever Obama spoke during the 2008 campaign.
Do you ultraconservatives intentionally forget Mathews' salivation over Dubya in a Pilot's suite or the fact he voted for Bush in 2001?
Inuyasha wrote:
bee333 wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
The whole thing points out how hard the traditional media has been trying to NOT be biased, even if the right refuses to give it any credit for the effort. I seriously can't decide if they should just abandon it all together, or ???? See, I think having all news outlets take on a clear bias is a mistake, but it's not like we can send Fox back into hiding or pull away Rush Limbaugh's power. So fighting fire with fire might be the only answer. I just ... hate it.
The traditional media is highly biased because it is controlled by corporations, whose aims runs counter to the liberal point of view. That's why there is very little in terms of liberal viewpoints in the mainstream media. There is already an enormous bias in the media and it is highly slanted towards conservatism and business interests because corporations hold sway in the media itself and in government. The notion that corporate outlets are trying not to be biased is in my opinion hopelessly naive.
As Gore Vidal said, the US only has one political party, the party of business. While the Democrats do a little less harm, the aims of both Republicans and Democrats are essentially the same. The media's job should be to cut through all that and tell the truth, and look out of the interests of the people instead of the interests of business, but they can't because there is too much pressure on them to conform to the party line.
Funny, I've never advocated for silencing free speech. You don't agree with Fox News and Rush Limbaugh so they must be silenced... And people say the right is totalitarian.
It's pretty disgusting that you put words into bee333's mouth that he didn't say. Just in case Con Artists can't get past the projection - just because something is biased doesn't mean we want it forced off the air. Although a good case could be made for breaking up uncompetitive media monopolies.
Inuyasha wrote:
Fox News beats all the other News Outlets on TV for a reason while MSNBC, CNN, etc. continue to lose viewers. It isn't cause people are stupid, it is cause the people have rejected the liberal propaganda.
Faux News was allowed to lose $80-$90 million a year for the first five years of opeartion perfecting its strategy as a propoganda outlet.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/ju ... _7-12.html
MSNBC half-heartedly moved left after it turned out their was a market demand for ideological commentary - Keith Olbermann has allowed MSNBC to drive passed CNN. They kept Con Artists like ex-Republican Congressman Joe on in the morning. MSNBC wasn't given an unlimited amount of money by some billionaire to persue a radical, long-term strategy that would take years to bear fruits.
Do you love making false analogies?
Inuyasha wrote:
Fact is I don't like Keith Olberman, but what he does with his own money as far as donating to political parties is his business. As long as he is open about it and admits his bias (which given his track record, it seems he doesn't realize he's seriously to the far left).
Keith Olbermann has defended Walmart, thinks that the loss of manufacturing jobs is solely due to natural economic shifts, and doesn't talk about the plight of the Palestinian people. At best he's a European reform-liberal.
Last edited by Master_Pedant on 09 Nov 2010, 2:23 am, edited 2 times in total.
09 Nov 2010, 1:59 am
09 Nov 2010, 2:14 am
09 Nov 2010, 3:27 am
09 Nov 2010, 2:57 pm
Master_Pedant wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
bee33 wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
The so called "liberal media" is a myth.
I agree with you there.
The majority of the media is liberal if you look at information concerning their voting patterns.
Irrelevant point. It wouldn't matter if most journalists were members of the Workers World Party unless they were given free reign to state their opinions. Hell, O'Donnell claims to be a "socialist" and yet spares no opportunity he gets for criticizing the Democratic Party for becoming "too liberal" to win. I don't chare weather the corporate media is staffed by masochistic nominal leftists or ideological Republicans, it still presisently shifts the overton window right.
Actually it was her opponent that declared himself to be a "bearded marxist."
Master_Pedant wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Not to mention Chris Mathews getting shivers up his leg whenever Obama spoke during the 2008 campaign.
Do you ultraconservatives intentionally forget Mathews' salivation over Dubya in a Pilot's suite or the fact he voted for Bush in 2001?
He couldn't have voted for Bush in 2001 because the election was in 2000.
Further, the mainstream media shot themselves in the foot on 9/11/2001, specifically TIME had an article giving sympathy to a terrorist that hit the shelves that day. You can imagine how the general public reacted, which resulted in a lot of the media being skittish for about a year. Additionally, if Matthews voted for Bush in 2000 (which I doubt), it would be cause he couldn't stand Al Gore (whom couldn't even carry his home state). Btw, if Al Gore had won, he would have been the first President that couldn't carry his home state. 
Master_Pedant wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
bee333 wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
The whole thing points out how hard the traditional media has been trying to NOT be biased, even if the right refuses to give it any credit for the effort. I seriously can't decide if they should just abandon it all together, or ???? See, I think having all news outlets take on a clear bias is a mistake, but it's not like we can send Fox back into hiding or pull away Rush Limbaugh's power. So fighting fire with fire might be the only answer. I just ... hate it.
The traditional media is highly biased because it is controlled by corporations, whose aims runs counter to the liberal point of view. That's why there is very little in terms of liberal viewpoints in the mainstream media. There is already an enormous bias in the media and it is highly slanted towards conservatism and business interests because corporations hold sway in the media itself and in government. The notion that corporate outlets are trying not to be biased is in my opinion hopelessly naive.
As Gore Vidal said, the US only has one political party, the party of business. While the Democrats do a little less harm, the aims of both Republicans and Democrats are essentially the same. The media's job should be to cut through all that and tell the truth, and look out of the interests of the people instead of the interests of business, but they can't because there is too much pressure on them to conform to the party line.
Funny, I've never advocated for silencing free speech. You don't agree with Fox News and Rush Limbaugh so they must be silenced... And people say the right is totalitarian.
It's pretty disgusting that you put words into bee333's mouth that he didn't say. Just in case Con Artists can't get past the projection - just because something is biased doesn't mean we want it forced off the air. Although a good case could be made for breaking up uncompetitive media monopolies.
If you'll notice I apologized, and pointed out I wasn't even referring to him in the first place.
I have seen the kind of remarks I am referring to on numerous sites in the past. I misinterpretted what someone on this site said, and after looking at it again and discovering that was not what the individual here was saying, I apologized. Master_Pedant wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Fox News beats all the other News Outlets on TV for a reason while MSNBC, CNN, etc. continue to lose viewers. It isn't cause people are stupid, it is cause the people have rejected the liberal propaganda.
Faux News was allowed to lose $80-$90 million a year for the first five years of opeartion perfecting its strategy as a propoganda outlet.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/ju ... _7-12.html
First PBS, NPR, etc. are probably going to be in danger of loosing Federal Funding due to their partisanship of late. I don't mind if a media station like MSNBC is partisan, I do mind when they are getting Federal Tax Dollars and are being partisan. Also, they lost money the first few years cause they had to make a name for themselves and get accepted by the public, that doesn't happen over night.
Master_Pedant wrote:
MSNBC half-heartedly moved left after it turned out their was a market demand for ideological commentary - Keith Olbermann has allowed MSNBC to drive passed CNN. They kept Con Artists like ex-Republican Congressman Joe on in the morning. MSNBC wasn't given an unlimited amount of money by some billionaire to persue a radical, long-term strategy that would take years to bear fruits.
They are losing viewers because they have no credibility. Also why don't you look up who owns MSNBC (well at least if COMCAST doesn't buy them).
Master_Pedant wrote:
Do you love making false analogies?
I wasn't aware I was making a false analogy, do you love accusing someone of lieing and personally attacking them?
Master_Pedant wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Fact is I don't like Keith Olberman, but what he does with his own money as far as donating to political parties is his business. As long as he is open about it and admits his bias (which given his track record, it seems he doesn't realize he's seriously to the far left).
Keith Olbermann has defended Walmart, thinks that the loss of manufacturing jobs is solely due to natural economic shifts, and doesn't talk about the plight of the Palestinian people. At best he's a European reform-liberal.
He is a left-wing nutcase as far as I'm concerned. Let's not get started about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, because that is seriously off topic. If you would like to start a topic on Israeli/Palestinian issues I would be more than happy to debate you when I have time on the subject. I think I still even have a paper I wrote for a class about media bias that included examples from that region.
09 Nov 2010, 3:13 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
Actually it was her opponent that declared himself to be a "bearded marxist."
Enough with misinformation about Chris Coons and the "bearded marxist" comment. It was a joke! Fox took the quote completely out of context and spun it around to fit their agenda. But I suppose this is an improvement to some of the other "facts" that they pull out of their butts, like Obama's $200 million/day trip to India.
09 Nov 2010, 3:35 pm
number5 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Actually it was her opponent that declared himself to be a "bearded marxist."
Enough with misinformation about Chris Coons and the "bearded marxist" comment. It was a joke! Fox took the quote completely out of context and spun it around to fit their agenda. But I suppose this is an improvement to some of the other "facts" that they pull out of their butts, like Obama's $200 million/day trip to India.
If it was a joke, it was an extremely stupid one to make. It doesn't seem likely that it was a joke though.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36726.html
Even Politico acknowledges it even if they try to spin it in Coons' favor.
09 Nov 2010, 3:36 pm
number5 wrote:
like Obama's $200 million/day trip to India.
Yeah. And actually we made money on that because he made an arms sale while he was there.
http://www.businessinsider.com/top-10-u ... ry-2010-11
So if there was any hardware moving ^that was most likely it.
09 Nov 2010, 3:42 pm
skafather84 wrote:
number5 wrote:
like Obama's $200 million/day trip to India.
Yeah. And actually we made money on that because he made an arms sale while he was there.
http://www.businessinsider.com/top-10-u ... ry-2010-11
So if there was any hardware moving ^that was most likely it.
As long as they don't reverse engineer it to make it themselves...
That said, it would be something that may jumpstart the economy in some areas.
09 Nov 2010, 3:44 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
number5 wrote:
like Obama's $200 million/day trip to India.
Yeah. And actually we made money on that because he made an arms sale while he was there.
http://www.businessinsider.com/top-10-u ... ry-2010-11
So if there was any hardware moving ^that was most likely it.
As long as they don't reverse engineer it to make it themselves...
That said, it would be something that may jumpstart the economy in some areas.
Even if they do reverse engineer it, do you think our technology will remain stagnant?
09 Nov 2010, 3:54 pm
skafather84 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
number5 wrote:
like Obama's $200 million/day trip to India.
Yeah. And actually we made money on that because he made an arms sale while he was there.
http://www.businessinsider.com/top-10-u ... ry-2010-11
So if there was any hardware moving ^that was most likely it.
As long as they don't reverse engineer it to make it themselves...
That said, it would be something that may jumpstart the economy in some areas.
Even if they do reverse engineer it, do you think our technology will remain stagnant?
A few years ago I would have said no. However, now innovation is being stifled in this country, so quite frankly some countries may end up passing us in technology because coming up with new ideas is discouraged.
09 Nov 2010, 3:59 pm
09 Nov 2010, 4:01 pm
09 Nov 2010, 11:13 pm
