| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/16/2009 07:15:26 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by phase3:
Originally posted by farfel53:
Originally posted by phase3:
...you can certainly point out that Rush embraced George Bush's so called Conservative government.... |
Just to correct "plausible" "facts", Limbaugh was consitently and sharply critical of G.W. Bush's spending craziness. But then, one would actually have had to listen to get the "real" facts, not just what had been "plausibly" presented by a biased liberal media. |
Well, that's not exactly true. Rush may have started out that way years ago, and he pretends to stand behind conservative idea's when the Democrats are in power, But you obviously missed a few shows where Rush certainly did embrace many of George Bush's Liberal idea's. If this were a political website I would take the time to show you where you are mistaken, but it's not. So I will leave it at that. |
Please at least take the time to mention a few of the Liberal Bush ideas that Rush was for. Yep, I missed that part. I won't ask you to document, but I would like to know what these particular issues are.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2009 07:32:18 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
Originally posted by farfel53:
, not just what had been "plausibly" presented by a biased liberal media. |
This is always such a silly argument, that the “mainstream” media is leftist and biased. Look at it objectively and you will see that talk radio is dominated by the right and has the largest share of the talk radio audience thus making it the mainstream. Look at TV news and you will see that FOX has something like a 35% share making it the mainstream media. Look at newspapers and you will see that the editorial pages are controlled by rich men who tend to be on the right, making them the mainstream media. Are there left leaning news organizations? Oh course, with MSNBC being one of the biggest, but it still has a very small market share. The NY Times which is the “villain” for most right wing talk show hosts was credited with pushing George Bush’s war agenda. How is that leftist? I could go on but the whole idea that the media is controlled by the left is ridiculous. The media is an entertainment industry now-a-days. The old days of true investigative reporting is long lost. It is all about ratings and ratings are high for tabloid type news. |
So combined ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Newsweek, etc. don't constitute "liberal bias" because their numbers are less than the right? I don't see how that follows. By that argument, Fox has only a 35% share, so they can't be biased? The point is, if all you watch is CNN or NBC, you will not get a balanced point of view. You will never hear a positive note about talk radio, nor even all the facts of a story if it doesn't suit the company agenda.
Example: when Mrs. Clinton was testifying before some Senate panel or other, she was asked a question about how her opinion differed from Bush and Cheney. She responded with something to the effect that it was no secret that she was miles different from Cheney, nyuk nyuk nyuk. End of story from NBC, I saw it myself. NBC: Hahaha, see how much she hates Cheney, just like we do. The Fox story continued with the response of the senate moderator, something to the effect "Madam Secretary, please stop the editorializing and just answer the question" Fox: See, she's just a politician.
Please don't tell me it's not there, and that it's not important.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2009 07:52:33 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Originally posted by phase3:
...you can certainly point out that Rush embraced George Bush's so called Conservative government.... |
Just to correct "plausible" "facts", Limbaugh was consitently and sharply critical of G.W. Bush's spending craziness. But then, one would actually have had to listen to get the "real" facts, not just what had been "plausibly" presented by a biased liberal media. |
He doesn't like McCain either or moderate republicans in general.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2009 08:22:49 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
So combined ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Newsweek, etc. don't constitute "liberal bias" because their numbers are less than the right? I don't see how that follows. |
Whooosh... right over your head. He's saying that Fox has a 35% market share and conservatives dominate talk radio, therefore they are part of the "mainstream media" (if not the mainstream itself). So the notion that the mainstream media has a liberal bias is silly. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 08:27:26 PM · #55 |
| I have always found it highly ridiculous that our "answer" to FOX or Limbaugh and all their spin is to come up with MSNBC which spins in the opposite direction. The answer is to turn all these talking heads off and do our own work at coming up with an opinion. News sources should be places like Google News (you can read multiple takes on the same topic) or NPR (which does have a liberal slant in story selection but does a good job of not editorializing within a story (unless it's an actual editorial) and spends a decent enough chunk of time on each story to give you a fair ability at coming up with your own ideas). |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 08:40:21 PM · #56 |
| I usually prefer BBC NEWS for that reason. You tend to get a more objective view from a third party source. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 08:52:49 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I usually prefer BBC NEWS for that reason. You tend to get a more objective view from a third party source. |
Well, the BBC does have it's problems but, like the National Health Service, you'd be hard pushed to find many people in the UK to really do it down seriously. It's another national treasure really. One of the reasons why James Murdoch got laughed out of town when he gave an idiotic talk about " the evils of state-sponsored media" or some such nonsense.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2009 08:55:11 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I have always found it highly ridiculous that our "answer" to FOX or Limbaugh and all their spin is to come up with MSNBC which spins in the opposite direction. The answer is to turn all these talking heads off and do our own work at coming up with an opinion. News sources should be places like Google News (you can read multiple takes on the same topic) or NPR (which does have a liberal slant in story selection but does a good job of not editorializing within a story (unless it's an actual editorial) and spends a decent enough chunk of time on each story to give you a fair ability at coming up with your own ideas). |
They say it on the radio, it has to be true or someone would fact check it and they wouldn't have any credibility. ;)
eta: pro wrestling is REAL
Message edited by author 2009-11-16 20:57:08. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 09:02:13 PM · #59 |
deleted.
Message edited by author 2009-11-16 21:48:24. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 09:04:34 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I have always found it highly ridiculous that our "answer" to FOX or Limbaugh and all their spin is to come up with MSNBC which spins in the opposite direction. The answer is to turn all these talking heads off and do our own work at coming up with an opinion. News sources should be places like Google News (you can read multiple takes on the same topic) or NPR (which does have a liberal slant in story selection but does a good job of not editorializing within a story (unless it's an actual editorial) and spends a decent enough chunk of time on each story to give you a fair ability at coming up with your own ideas). |
Agreed. It's sad that you have to read multiple sources to get the truth on anything. And Google News has been my favorite news source for a couple weeks now. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 09:09:58 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Rush, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Hannity, Colmes and O'Reilly are like spoiled children who, when they don't get their way, just yell louder and louder. They all need a whippin' and a lesson in civility.
I'm all for debate and spirited, rational discussion of the issues, but the name-calling, vitriol and "I'm louder and more obnoxious, so I'm right" attitude from these folks is ridiculous. |
Just for the record, Colmes is a liberal. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 09:26:31 PM · #62 |
 LoudDog you are right about the term. I had heard this definition before but certainly wasn't thinking of it when I posted the statement. In fact I'd forgotten this particular definition until just now.
Sorry Hubby... it's deleted.
I would also like to say that as stubborn he is about his news source choices, he is actually a pretty open minded person when it comes to just about everything else. He would not mind that I have started this thread. I don't think that I have insulted him purposely.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2009 09:29:32 PM · #63 |
| tell him to watch BBC news. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 09:54:24 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Rush, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Hannity, Colmes and O'Reilly are like spoiled children who, when they don't get their way, just yell louder and louder. They all need a whippin' and a lesson in civility.
I'm all for debate and spirited, rational discussion of the issues, but the name-calling, vitriol and "I'm louder and more obnoxious, so I'm right" attitude from these folks is ridiculous. |
Just for the record, Colmes is a liberal. |
Fox may have called Colmes a liberal, but on many issues, like the supporting the use of so-called "enhanced" interrogation techniques, endorsing Guiliani for mayor of NYC, etc. he was definitely in the right wing camp. Colmes even characterized himself as a moderate. So, compared to a right wingnut like Hannity, Colmes might appear liberal, but the reality is that he's anything but.
Message edited by author 2009-11-16 22:00:55. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 10:13:58 PM · #65 |
For the OP.
My parents and I are opposites when it comes to our political views. I will never start a conversation regarding politics with them but when they start in with their "media" fed view points I have a method to turn it into a neutral conversation. I simply state that most politicians are in it for their own interests and don't care about why they are in the position of being a representative of the people. This will usually stop any debating and turn the conversation to something most people can agree on...WE are not being represented as we should be and the government needs to be FOR the people and not just concentrating on their own political viewpoints.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2009 10:35:08 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by kleski:
For the OP.
My parents and I are opposites when it comes to our political views. I will never start a conversation regarding politics with them but when they start in with their "media" fed view points I have a method to turn it into a neutral conversation. I simply state that most politicians are in it for their own interests and don't care about why they are in the position of being a representative of the people. This will usually stop any debating and turn the conversation to something most people can agree on...WE are not being represented as we should be and the government needs to be FOR the people and not just concentrating on their own political viewpoints. |
Agreed... and thank you. I think I will try this same method when he brings it up next time he is home . It is certainly a position we can both agree on. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 10:52:23 PM · #67 |
| the vast majority of politicians are useless sacks of shit. the only people worse than them are the media who cover politics. it dosen't matter what side you are on or against(trust you, i have my very strong feelings on which side is on the right track.)only that you listen to both sides and find the truths. let the weak minds fight about feelings and bicker about how loud some people can be. be one of the strong, who fight for their ideals and morals and principles. don't stand behind someone else, be your own voice, be heard, you are the people. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 11:02:23 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by apercep:
only that you listen to both sides and find the truths. |
Trouble is... both sides are often lying :| |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 11:21:32 PM · #69 |
| hense "useless sacks of shit!" |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 12:01:14 AM · #70 |
| Remember: James Carville is married to Mary Matalin. If they can find common ground, anyone can. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 01:52:36 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by bassbone:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Tell him to give NPR a shot for a week or two, they seem to be about as middle of the road as you will get. They have great programs on there that are not all political as well. |
I would disagree with this. I enjoy NPR and listen to it often, but it clearly has a liberal slant. |
Interesting the pew institute did a study on the guests on NPR, turns out that 58% of their guests are self identified as conservative or associated with conservative think tanks like Hoover, Cato ect. I assume that this booking choice is intended to battle the perceived liberalism of the network. Their arts and culture entertainment is certainly slanted to the left, their business programming ( marketplace ect.) is pretty rightist, which makes sense. But their news division is pretty clearly balanced and good journalism.
To the original post by Cynthiann, if you husband has gotten interested in conservatism in the shallow end of Rush and company, rather than fighting his interest, introduce him to the deep end of conservative thought The national review founded by William Buckley, is as thoughtful as Fox is misleading and vapid. I think I would rather argue with my wife on interesting well founded points of fact that tell her she wasn't allowed to talk to me about one of her interests. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 02:54:41 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by farfel53:
So combined ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Newsweek, etc. don't constitute "liberal bias" because their numbers are less than the right? I don't see how that follows. |
Whooosh... right over your head. He's saying that Fox has a 35% market share and conservatives dominate talk radio, therefore they are part of the "mainstream media" (if not the mainstream itself). So the notion that the mainstream media has a liberal bias is silly. |
I can read. Who said "mainstream media"? Whoosh...right back over yours....I didn't say anything at all about mainstream media bias, but LIBERAL bias in the media. Please, read before you belittle.
If your only news sources are as above, I merely maintain that you will get a liberal bias. What does the definition of "mainstream" have to do with whether or not a particular group of media are biased or not?
Message edited by author 2009-11-17 03:03:25.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2009 03:25:33 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by farfel53:
So combined ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Newsweek, etc. don't constitute "liberal bias" because their numbers are less than the right? I don't see how that follows. |
Whooosh... right over your head. He's saying that Fox has a 35% market share and conservatives dominate talk radio, therefore they are part of the "mainstream media" (if not the mainstream itself). So the notion that the mainstream media has a liberal bias is silly. |
I can read. Who said "mainstream media"? Whoosh...right back over yours....I didn't say anything at all about mainstream media bias, but LIBERAL bias in the media. Please, read before you belittle.
If your only news sources are as above, I merely maintain that you will get a liberal bias. What does the definition of "mainstream" have to do with whether or not a particular group of media are biased or not? |
Wow, insults from the right wing. There's something new...oh wait...nevermind...blather on.
The fact is that Fox is part of the MEDIA. Do they have a liberal bias?
WAH! WAH! WAH! Liberal bias in the media WAH! WAH! WAH!
If you only listen to Fox, you'll have a conservative bias...what's your point?
If you only watch cartoons, you'll think it's OK to drop an anvil on a coyote.
If you only listen to Fred Phelps, you'll believe that God really does hate fags.
If you only believed Jim Jones, you would have swallowed the Kool-Aid.
If you only read fairy tales, you'd believe in Rumpelstiltskin.
and so on. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 07:50:36 AM · #74 |
So what really is your point? Just to insult me? Whatever.
You make my original point - if you only watch "liberal" media, (please notice I didn't say "mainstream") then you'll probably believe that Rush Limbaugh was a staunch supporter of everything GWB did on his watch...which he was not, in particular "No Child Left Behind" and the new Medicare prescription drug programs. If you don't believe me, listen yourself for a couple of weeks, or YOU go look it up, somewhere other than NBC/CBS/ABC, etc.
Why is this simple observation stirring such ire from you guys? It ain't that hard to see.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2009 08:32:28 AM · #75 |
Look this isn't "rocket surgery". If you are a right winger then your going to think Fox is the only one giving the whole story. If you are close to the middle then your going to laugh at fox. The difference is Fox will use a sliver of fact. Most of the others will report using more factual stories(less oppinion). When I hear someone say that fox is the only one telling the whole story, they lose all credibility. Usally followed by "the sky is falling, the sky is falling".
Would someone please inform me(seriously) legislation wise, what is Rush's crowning achievement? |
|
