PhreeZone 20 #26 November 12, 2005 Name a second one Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #27 November 12, 2005 QuoteWhy bother.. those on the right will not listen to it anyway.. if its not an APPROVED news resource.. you see it every day on this board....Just like our beloved El Presidente... he does not want to hear anything that does not agree with him... Sort of like the Politburo with Pravda or TASS used to be. and you're different HOW exactly? -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #28 November 12, 2005 QuoteJust like our beloved El Presidente... he does not want to hear anything that does not agree with him... I'm sure our reasons for agreeing on this comment would be 180 degrees out, but there you have it. You're preaching to the choir. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #29 November 12, 2005 QuoteName a second one I'm going out on a limb here because she isn't very vocal on personal views -- Greta Van Sustern. Also, in addition to the hosts, FOX brings in a huge lineup of talking heads from both the left and right. --- Edit to add: Mort Sandracke, co-host of the "Beltway Boys" show. He's a leftie. --- Edit again to add: I hate to break it to you, but Bill O'Reilly is pro-choice. Forgot about that one. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #30 November 12, 2005 Quoteand you're different HOW exactly? Puh-puh-puh-plagiarist! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #31 November 12, 2005 QuoteQuoteand you're different HOW exactly? Puh-puh-puh-plagiarist! whatchu talkin'bout willis? *swoon* shouldn't you be jumping and grabbing a young man by the nads? -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #32 November 12, 2005 >you're one of the many people who doesn't actually watch O'Reilly's show > but slams it anyway . . . . Watched it a few times; I'm not much of a TV person. >you watch the show, but from a perspective so far left you believe he's >way to the right . . . I don't think he's way to the right. He has a distinct right slant, but if he can make money slamming someone on the right, he will do that too. >Either way, he's got the #1 cable news show . . . Ah! You are one of the people who confuses popularity with verisimilitude. Here's a stat for you, then. The Tonight Show is more popular than the O'Reilly show, and the Tonight Show makes fun of him all the time. Therefore, by your standards, the Tonight Show is more 'newsworthy' than O'Reilly! Numbers don't lie. >people are now free to choose where they get their news, and the pattern is clear. Yes. Thank God they passed the First Amendment last year! I can remember back in the 90's when people were all forced to watch only NBC by government monitors. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #33 November 12, 2005 QuoteYes. Thank God they passed the First Amendment last year! I can remember back in the 90's when people were all forced to watch only NBC by government monitors. are you really so blind to not see that the mainsteam media has taken a big hit -and has been forced to reckon with- more centrist (and more right slanted as well) news outlets? Mainstream media -read leftist- has had a monopoly on news delivery for far too long... not anymore. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #34 November 12, 2005 QuoteAh! You are one of the people who confuses popularity with verisimilitude. Here's a stat for you, then. The Tonight Show is more popular than the O'Reilly show, and the Tonight Show makes fun of him all the time. Therefore, by your standards, the Tonight Show is more 'newsworthy' than O'Reilly! Numbers don't lie. Well, Desperate Housewives is more popular than the Tonight Show so, by your calculations, Desperate Housewives is more newsworthy than the Tonight Show. Do I have it right? QuoteYes. Thank God they passed the First Amendment last year! I can remember back in the 90's when people were all forced to watch only NBC by government monitors. Sure, we've always been free to choose from the list of available news outlets. Luckily for the consumer, and unfortunately for NBC, technology has paved the way to a lot more choices. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #35 November 12, 2005 >Desperate Housewives is more popular than the Tonight Show so, by your > calculations, Desperate Housewives is more newsworthy than the Tonight >Show. Do I have it right? Oddly enough, some people think that way. "FOX is really popular so it's an excellent news source." > Luckily for the consumer, and unfortunately for NBC, technology >has paved the way to a lot more choices. You mean like the printing press? The Wall Street Journal is about as conservative as they come, and they've been around for a long, long time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #36 November 12, 2005 Quote"FOX is really popular so because it's an excellent news source." Fixed to make your comment more logical. QuoteYou mean like the printing press? The Wall Street Journal is about as conservative as they come, and they've been around for a long, long time. 1. A WSJ subscription costs a pretty penny. 2. The WSJ, like other print media, doesn't give instant news as do the Internet and television. 3. The WSJ is geared for the upper few percent of the population regarding income and/or intellect. What about the rest of us . . . er I mean you all . . . . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #37 November 12, 2005 QuoteI had a recruiter tell me to lie during my initial application. When I answered a couple questions yes, he said, "You mean no" and checked off no on the form. did you sign it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #38 November 12, 2005 QuoteI'll stipulate that much of the media does slant left. But you can't honestly believe that FOX and just about all talk radio is not right of middle. Sure it is, air America is going down in flames. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #39 November 12, 2005 I love O'Reilly. If I'm not home, I Tivo the Factor. I may not agree with everything he says, but damn he says it well. For the record, the O'Reilly Factor is a news analysis show. O'Reilly himself claims to be an independent and he does take many shots at the right. Almost all of his segments have contributors from both sides of the aisle. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #40 November 13, 2005 Quotelso, in addition to the hosts, FOX brings in a huge lineup of talking heads from both the left and right. I saw a breakdown posted on here before from Fairness in Media or some other such organization. It was a detailed listing of political guests on all the different networks and news programs. Almost all the networks had a fairly even breakdown between left and right. FOX was the exception with many more guests from the right. I think it was a 2-1 margin. (If you don't buy this I'll try to find the info to show you). Anyway...my observation is that FOX anchors may be a little more neutral in their presentation of news stories (anchors, not commentators like O'reilly or hannity) than most media. Most will present news with a view somewhat to the left. However, non-FOX news usually presents a more neutral selection of stories and neutral seleciton of guests on opinion shoes. FOX ignores a lot of stories and guests that look good for the left, or bad for the right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #41 November 13, 2005 Don't you think everyone's judgment of the various news networks is skewed by their own political and sociological views? _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #42 November 13, 2005 Of course. That's why I said it was my observation. However a breakdown of the number of guests who are affiliated with one party or the other is hard to skew. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #43 November 13, 2005 >Fixed to make your comment more logical. Like someone else said, Britney Spears is a very popular entertainer. Is she an excellent news source? (you know, that could explain some people's misconceptions here . . .) How about Al Franken? His book hit #1 in sales a few weeks back. So he's a much better commentator than someone like Michelle Malkin, right? After all, he's more popular because he's an excellent commentator. >2. The WSJ, like other print media, doesn't give instant news as >do the Internet and television. www.wsj.com >3. The WSJ is geared for the upper few percent of the population > regarding income and/or intellect. It's written for a tenth grade reading level. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #44 November 13, 2005 QuoteOf course. That's why I said it was my observation. However a breakdown of the number of guests who are affiliated with one party or the other is hard to skew. Even though I don't see stats, I tend to agree with you in regard to Fox. On the flip side I would not be surprised if you saw the opposite to be true in regard to CNN during the Clinton years. Fox has managed to provide a news source that a large (some think the majority) percentage of the viewing public can relate to. Quite clever of Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes if you ask me. For many years, conservatives and those on the right were not being served by the likes of CNN and the Networks. I believe CNN has become more moderate thanks to Fox. Fox's popularity has pulled them more to the center. Now I feel I have more than one television news source that I can trust. Even NPR is coming along. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #45 November 13, 2005 QuoteI saw a breakdown posted on here before from Fairness in Media or some other such organization. It was a detailed listing of political guests on all the different networks and news programs. Almost all the networks had a fairly even breakdown between left and right. FOX was the exception with many more guests from the right. I think it was a 2-1 margin. (If you don't buy this I'll try to find the info to show you). I would love to see that. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #46 November 13, 2005 QuoteBritney Spears is a very popular entertainer. Is she an excellent news source? (you know, that could explain some people's misconceptions here . . .) Nobody turns to Britney Spears for their news, so I don't get the departure. I don't think just being "popular" means something is a good news source. It has to be some sort of news source to be in the running. Quote>2. The WSJ, like other print media, doesn't give instant news as >do the Internet and television. www.wsj.com And wsj.com is associated with the printing press in which way? Quote>3. The WSJ is geared for the upper few percent of the population > regarding income and/or intellect. It's written for a tenth grade reading level. Like I said, the upper few percent of our intellect. But education in the US is another story. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #47 November 13, 2005 >Nobody turns to Britney Spears for their news, so I don't get the > departure. I don't think just being "popular" means something is a > good news source. It has to be some sort of news source to be in >the running. Being popular means that something is popular. It does not equal accuracy, Al Franken is a political commentator; his book opened at #1. Does that mean his political commentary is more accurate than anyone elses? >And wsj.com is associated with the printing press in which way? It's the . . . Never mind. Whatever your point was, you win. You're right. No one can get the WSJ unless they're rich and really really smart. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #48 November 13, 2005 QuoteBeing popular means that something is popular. It does not equal accuracy, Al Franken is a political commentator; his book opened at #1. Does that mean his political commentary is more accurate than anyone elses? I see your point, but that just leads us back to the question of why FOX news is popular. I think part of the answer to that question is because they are more accurate. Obviously, you don't. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #49 November 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteBeing popular means that something is popular. It does not equal accuracy, Al Franken is a political commentator; his book opened at #1. Does that mean his political commentary is more accurate than anyone elses? I see your point, but that just leads us back to the question of why FOX news is popular. I think part of the answer to that question is because they are more accurate. Obviously, you don't. Dunno, why did the Black Legion (the more aggressive successor to the KKK) have over 7,000,000 active, proud and public members? ------------------------------- The Black Legion primarily targeted communists, blacks, Jews, and Catholics in the name of God and protecting white Protestant America. The group was also opposed to FDR and his policies and was involved heavily with the Republican Party. The group was political, large, and took serious action, including lynching people, shootings, murders, floggings, kidnappings, and general threats of violence against people and groups that they opposed. The Black Legion was also acting in accord with the interests of some corporations as will be discussed below. They were involved in union busting and threatening labor organizers. In addition to this there were institutional members of the Black Legion, just as there had been institutional members of the KKK. As discussed above, members of the military and National Guard were of the Legion. ---------------------------------------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #50 November 13, 2005 QuoteDunno, why did the Black Legion (the more aggressive successor to the KKK) have over 7,000,000 active, proud and public members? Thankfully, white racism is far less mainstream now than it was back in the '30s. In fact, the only socially accepted forms of racism today are against whites. In any event, thanks to the civil rights movement, racism itself is moving further and further to the fringe. FOX has to sell a lot of soap to maintain it's level of production. Do you think they subsist and flourish by appealling to the fringe? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
