Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
I've only seen the show a couple of times, but in both cases Combs was basically MIA. How much airtime does he get, compared to Hannity?[/quote]Darth Wong wrote:
So how do you address the charge made by FOXNews' detractors (after watching the network and actually keeping track) that Republicans get around 5 times more exposure on FOXNews than Democrats do?Kon_El wrote:I don't get to watch it myself all that often but in the presidental debate they had equal screen time along with each haveing guests they talked individualy about the debate with.
Darth Wong wrote: A misleading claim is a misleading claim, regardless of how many people were successfully misled by it on either side.
That was not the case here. The Administration's own intel and energy departments both questioned the claims: something the Bush Administration hushed up when telling the public (and the Congress) that the case for WMD was ironclad. That's a misleading claim by any stretch of the imagination.Kon_El wrote:If all evidence says that somthing is true stateing that it is true is not missleading.Darth Wong wrote:A misleading claim is a misleading claim, regardless of how many people were successfully misled by it on either side.
See above.Missleading would be telling someone somthing when evidence says that thing is false.
Suppressing the fact that there was considerable dissent from their own intel and energy departments is a clear deception.The intel was missleading not the person interpreting it
Can't say as I have not done the research and don't know the paramaters for the study.Darth Wong wrote:So how do you address the charge made by FOXNews' detractors (after watching the network and actually keeping track) that Republicans get around 5 times more exposure on FOXNews than Democrats do?Kon_El wrote:I don't get to watch it myself all that often but in the presidental debate they had equal screen time along with each haveing guests they talked individualy about the debate with.
Can't recall remember where I saw it.Darth Wong wrote:How do you know that the protester group outside the DNC was just as big as the one outside the RNC?Kon_El wrote:Its Bias that when the Democrats and Republicans have their conventions the media spends more screen time on the protestors outside the Republican convention than they do on the convention its self while ignoreing the equally large group of protestors outside the Democratic convention.Given that fact, you have yet to provide anything remotely resembling proof of liberal bias in the media.
In any intel situation there will always be evidance that says otherwise but the majority or the evidence said that they had WMD's. The Issue was that after the fact we found out that Sadamm himself was haveing intel created and sent out that said he had them in order to have power over neighboring countrys.Darth Wong wrote:That was not the case here. The Administration's own intel and energy departments both questioned the claims: something the Bush Administration hushed up when telling the public (and the Congress) that the case for WMD was ironclad. That's a misleading claim by any stretch of the imagination.
Bullshit. The intel that said Saddam had WMD was so nebulous and so loaded with qualifiers that it was very thin to begin with, and the evidence that there were no WMD was much stronger. The latter just got stronger and stronger the closer the war came, and the Bush Administration chose to ignore and actively suppress it so they could get their precious invasion. Nobody who paid any attention and didn't look at the world through neocon blinders was surprised when it turned out that there were no WMD after all.Kon_El wrote:In any intel situation there will always be evidance that says otherwise but the majority or the evidence said that they had WMD's. The Issue was that after the fact we found out that Sadamm himself was haveing intel created and sent out that said he had them in order to have power over neighboring countrys.Darth Wong wrote:That was not the case here. The Administration's own intel and energy departments both questioned the claims: something the Bush Administration hushed up when telling the public (and the Congress) that the case for WMD was ironclad. That's a misleading claim by any stretch of the imagination.
If anyone is to blame for the U.S. and other countries beliving Irac contained weapons of mass destruction its Sadamm himself.
Then the evidence I asked for is ... your say-so?Kon_El wrote:Can't recall remember where I saw it.
Oh yes it does, since it means that you cannot support your assertion that the coverage was unfair.Dosen't really have anything to do with the fact that the mainstreem media made the story be the protest rather than the actual event
Thats more true than you might even suspect. Part of my journalism course covers the history of the press (including such wonderful things as how Britain* got freedom of the press by accident) and the earliest news sheets here date to the 15th century and read like Ye Olde Weekly World News. With shit about strange creatures and all sorts of other crap.Stormbringer wrote:There are no doubt that there are plenty of sensationalism. That's been the issue in journalism since day one.
Not our fucking problem that you have your head so far up your arse you're looking out of your mouth into your rectum.Kon_El wrote:How about the fact that Mary Mapes a producer in the Memo scandel at CBS admited to haveing tiped the Kerry campain off to the source of the documents before runing the story. Ever wonder how they got those ads on the air so fast?
Or how Tom Brokaw ended the newscast the night of Arnolds speach with "things are not going well in many parts of the world for the United States. Despite the speeches tonight of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Laura Bush, this is a very difficult time in Iraq, the war on terrorism is an uncertain trumpet."
That night Jennings ended with "The one thing we'll leave you with tonight was what Giuliani said last night. He, being a great New York Yankees fan, said the Republican Party's future was like the Yankees'. Maybe a little glib to conclude with, but tonight the Yankees got beaten by Cleveland 22 to nothing."
sounds biased to me.
EEk horrid Thread Necromancy... I apologise in advance. (I was looking to see if certain threads had been posted...) anyway, Franken studied this, having his team count words and it is somewhere in the region of Combs saying about half as much Hannity. (I can check the exact figures if need be, I just am using Uni computers at the moment and so don't have the book on me.) also Combs is not a Democrat, he is an independent centralist. In other words the Right-Left show is actually a Right-Middle show. Or to steal Frankens analogy, it's a see-saw but while one guy is sitting at the end, the other person is sitting in the middle... With the obvious effect this will have...Darth Wong wrote:
I've only seen the show a couple of times, but in both cases Combs was basically MIA. How much airtime does he get, compared to Hannity?
You’re forgetting that, as reporters rather than commentators – and reporters who claim to give fair and balanced treatment to the stories , at that –, people like Brokaw and Jennings allow people the assumption that they are not pulling strings toward one direction or the other.
Besides, Brokaw's comment is completely factual, and if you don't like that objective reality, sucks to be you. Jennings's comment points out that even the mighty may take a fall and is more of a cautionary one than anything else.
Of course, you're just another right-wingnut who wouldn't recognize real bias if it smacked him upside the head with a 2x4, and from your postinghistory in this thread, it's clear you're not even interested in trying to defend your opinion, you just like to state it as fact and get all pissy when people don't agree with you.
Sadly, you can't blame the Republicans. You have to blame the American people. Shit like that doesn't fly if the people don't buy it, and like it or not, people are buying it. This takes us back to Winston Churchill's sage comment that "The best argument against democracy is a 5-minute conversation with the average voter."Iceberg wrote:You know, Republicans really fucking scare me these days. When books marketed to Republicans carry subtitles like "Why we must crush the Democrats in every election," it's fucking terrifying.
Because we ALL know it's perfectly healthy in a democracy for ONLY one viewpoint to be expressed in governance.
It always amuses me how people can declare that people like Moore, whose basic message is 'These folks here don't deserve what they've got', are no better than the 'We must destroy Liberals' whackjobs. Or, somehow, worse. I certainly haven't heard him calling for the entire Republican party to be accused of treason or any of the other ridiculous things the other side throws..Iceberg wrote:You know, Republicans really fucking scare me these days. When books marketed to Republicans carry subtitles like "Why we must crush the Democrats in every election," it's fucking terrifying.
Because we ALL know it's perfectly healthy in a democracy for ONLY one viewpoint to be expressed in governance.
You know, Democrats really fucking scare me these days. When books marketed to Democrats carry subtitles like "How conservatives steal elections and want to hijack the world," it's fucking terrifying.You know, Republicans really fucking scare me these days. When books marketed to Republicans carry subtitles like "Why we must crush the Democrats in every election," it's fucking terrifying.
Because we ALL know it's perfectly healthy in a democracy for ONLY one viewpoint to be expressed in governance.
Jesus Christ. Grow the fuck up and realize that it's not an isolated phenomena. It's not just the "evil Republicans." oh noes1 teh eval democrats sed sum repupicans did sumtin bad1 ths just az bade az seyin loc ups al teh democraties1Axis Kast wrote:You know, Democrats really fucking scare me these days. When books marketed to Democrats carry subtitles like "How conservatives steal elections and want to hijack the world," it's fucking terrifying.You know, Republicans really fucking scare me these days. When books marketed to Republicans carry subtitles like "Why we must crush the Democrats in every election," it's fucking terrifying.
Because we ALL know it's perfectly healthy in a democracy for ONLY one viewpoint to be expressed in governance.
Look who's talking.You are really fucking pathetic, Kast. It's actually beyond your pre-schooler mental development to admit the Right might have done wrong, isn't it?
Someone who can recignize the differences in 'All Liberals must be stopped' and 'Bush and his cronies stole an election', apparently.Axis Kast wrote:Look who's talking.You are really fucking pathetic, Kast. It's actually beyond your pre-schooler mental development to admit the Right might have done wrong, isn't it?
You know, it's particularly highlighting of the point I made a little ways up in this thread, about how those like you are so very indoctorined that you can't tell the difference between the two stances. You honestly can't tell a difference between 'All Liberals are guilty of Treason' and 'Bush's puppeteers commited a felony', can you?It's not a matter of defending Republicans, right or wrong. It's a matter of reminding people like Iceberg, Wong, and yourself that certain Democrats can be equally close-minded and alarmist. Republicans don't exactly have a monopoly on playing to people's fears. You often seem to forget that as you rail against supposed Republican "3v3L," your own biases are put in stark relief.
And what do you think, "How the conservatives stole and warped this nation" really translates to, in the end? That you can stand here and insist I am going to great lengths to baselessly demonize the other side is really a testament to your own idiocy.Someone who can recignize the differences in 'All Liberals must be stopped' and 'Bush and his cronies stole an election', apparently.
I'm not suggesting you're going to any lengths; like a great deal of humanity, you just mindlessly bleat what you've been fed. But since you're presenting no argument, merely proving my earlier post about how ridiculously the Right warps things, I'll let you bleat away that you're right. It obviously makes you feel better.Axis Kast wrote:And what do you think, "How the conservatives stole and warped this nation" really translates to, in the end? That you can stand here and insist I am going to great lengths to baselessly demonize the other side is really a testament to your own idiocy.Someone who can recignize the differences in 'All Liberals must be stopped' and 'Bush and his cronies stole an election', apparently.
