Notices
Results 1 to 60 of 60
Like Tree27Likes
  • 1 Post By sculptor
  • 1 Post By Harold14370
  • 1 Post By danhanegan
  • 2 Post By Harold14370
  • 2 Post By Harold14370
  • 2 Post By Harold14370
  • 2 Post By Harold14370
  • 1 Post By Harold14370
  • 1 Post By Harold14370
  • 2 Post By Harold14370
  • 1 Post By Harold14370
  • 1 Post By Harold14370
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 2 Post By Harold14370
  • 1 Post By Harold14370
  • 2 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By MrMojo1
  • 1 Post By Harold14370
  • 1 Post By MrMojo1
  • 1 Post By MrMojo1

Thread: The importance of Lester -- U.S. campaign funding

  1. #1 The importance of Lester -- U.S. campaign funding 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    282
    Ran across this TED talk today. I feel it gives a decent explanation of the primary problem with U.S. politics today.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_le...e_must_reclaim


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    Excellent TED talk.


    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    during a recent election, i put a sign on my truck that said:

    "VOTE FOR SALE
    inquire within"

    (if $$$ is free speech, that is the sort of monologue i could use.)

    sadly, the Lesters do not buy votes retail
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    This guy is trying to build a case for infringing on people's first amendment rights to buy campaign ads. No worries about the news media, though. How many Lesters are there in the news media? These guys buy ink by the barrel and influence elections far more than a few campaign ads. They not only comment on the news, they decide what the news is. They blatantly campaign for candidates and never have to report it as an in-kind contribution.

    Case in point. Last night I heard ABC news doing a puff piece on Hillary. Not watched, just overheard it. I wouldn't watch that propaganda. She was getting an award from some liberal group for breaking through the glass ceiling. This is laughable because all she ever did was ride Bill's coattails into the Whitehouse. Any thing she was ever in charge of turned into a disaster. Then they reported her comments about the upcoming Benghazi hearing as if they weren't self-serving comments from somebody who is trying to cover up her own failure. No, she was just a respectable winner of the glass ceiling award, and they were just reporting a news story. And, of course, no opposing views were aired. Not if you're just reporting a news story, right? And no need to report your in-kind campaign contribution.
    Howard Roark likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    This guy is trying to build a case for infringing on people's first amendment rights to buy campaign ads. No worries about the news media, though. How many Lesters are there in the news media? These guys buy ink by the barrel and influence elections far more than a few campaign ads. They not only comment on the news, they decide what the news is. They blatantly campaign for candidates and never have to report it as an in-kind contribution.
    Kinda shocked to see you rallying so hard against your preferred "news" station

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Case in point. Last night I heard ABC news doing a puff piece on Hillary. Not watched, just overheard it. I wouldn't watch that propaganda.
    Disgusting. just disgusting that ABC would say something nice about Clinton. Didn't the get the Fox Memo? Only NEGATIVE propaganda for Clinton.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    She was getting an award from some liberal group for breaking through the glass ceiling.
    Heaven forbid she get an award for some conservative group...

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    This is laughable because all she ever did was ride Bill's coattails into the Whitehouse.
    Hilarious rewriting of history!! When Bill was in the whitehouse all conservatives did was bitch and moan about how Hillary is running the whitehouse. Do the other conservatives know you're pushing this narrative? Or do they already know cause they told you to say it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Any thing she was ever in charge of turned into a disaster.
    I think you mean W. and it wasn't just disaster but bankruptcy as well; going all the way back to Arbusto oil. Odd how he got out of insider trading charges for selling off all of his stock before they failed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Then they reported her comments about the upcoming Benghazi hearing as if they weren't self-serving comments from somebody who is trying to cover up her own failure.
    Why doesn't the right bang the drum of failure for the 50 some odd embassy attacks when the right was in charge? For the more than 4 people that died in those embassy attacks? Talk about propaganda. you love propaganda you just have a preferred flavor.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    No, she was just a respectable winner of the glass ceiling award, and they were just reporting a news story.
    Sounds like it.




    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    And, of course, no opposing views were aired.
    what opposing view on her receiving an award? are you upset that that particular organization was not "commenting on the news?" (something you were pissed off at at the starting of your rant)

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Not if you're just reporting a news story, right? And no need to report your in-kind campaign contribution.
    Like the conservatives that live and breathe Fox "News" do this right? I would call you a hypocrite but I believe you know better which is just straight fraud.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    This guy is trying to build a case for infringing on people's first amendment rights to buy campaign ads. No worries about the news media, though. How many Lesters are there in the news media? These guys buy ink by the barrel and influence elections far more than a few campaign ads. They not only comment on the news, they decide what the news is. They blatantly campaign for candidates and never have to report it as an in-kind contribution.

    Case in point. Last night I heard ABC news doing a puff piece on Hillary. Not watched, just overheard it. I wouldn't watch that propaganda. She was getting an award from some liberal group for breaking through the glass ceiling. This is laughable because all she ever did was ride Bill's coattails into the Whitehouse. Any thing she was ever in charge of turned into a disaster. Then they reported her comments about the upcoming Benghazi hearing as if they weren't self-serving comments from somebody who is trying to cover up her own failure. No, she was just a respectable winner of the glass ceiling award, and they were just reporting a news story. And, of course, no opposing views were aired. Not if you're just reporting a news story, right? And no need to report your in-kind campaign contribution.
    I think you missed a lot of the point. He isn't trying to limit people's right to free speech, he is trying to restrict the ability of a handful of fabulously wealthy people from speaking in a voice millions of times louder than the voice of ordinary citizens. Are you really OK with 138 people contributing 60% of all superpac money? How many of those people are even U.S. citizens?

    That said, I do agree that the media influence is huge, and this TED talk pretty much ignores it. But that influence is by no means limited to supporting liberals such as Hillary Clinton.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by danhanegan View Post
    I think you missed a lot of the point. He isn't trying to limit people's right to free speech, he is trying to restrict the ability of a handful of fabulously wealthy people from speaking in a voice millions of times louder than the voice of ordinary citizens. Are you really OK with 138 people contributing 60% of all superpac money? How many of those people are even U.S. citizens?

    That said, I do agree that the media influence is huge, and this TED talk pretty much ignores it. But that influence is by no means limited to supporting liberals such as Hillary Clinton.
    If you restrict campaign ads, you are restricting freedom of speech, and leaving the field wide open to the news media. The media are overwhelmingly liberal in their views. When was the last time you saw a puff piece on a Republican? It just isn't done.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Like the conservatives that live and breathe Fox "News" do this right? I would call you a hypocrite but I believe you know better which is just straight fraud.
    Does Fox do puff pieces? I really don't know, because I don't have cable TV. I found a puff piece on Hillary without even trying. I'm sure there will be plenty more as the election time gets closer. Buckle up.
    I like how you always talk about Fox news. It's the only channel that doesn't toe the Democrat party line. They have a more balanced view. On the other side, you have ABC, CBS, NBC, Washington Post, New York Times, etc., etc., etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    big money conservatives paying big money media to run political adds counter to the big money media liberal fluff
    meanwhile
    the other 99% of the populous of this "representative" government stand by as big money slowly eats away at what once held the promise of being
    a government
    of the people
    by the people
    and for the people

    So much for utopian political b.s.?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The media are overwhelmingly liberal in their views..
    Not even close. But fox said it you believe it and so there's nothing more to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Like the conservatives that live and breathe Fox "News" do this right? I would call you a hypocrite but I believe you know better which is just straight fraud.
    Does Fox do puff pieces?
    Constantly. Their whole network is a puff piece.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I really don't know, because I don't have cable TV. I found a puff piece on Hillary without even trying.
    Was it really a puff piece or just anything not running negative on a liberal is "support" for them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I'm sure there will be plenty more as the election time gets closer. Buckle up.
    Doubtful.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I like how you always talk about Fox news. It's the only channel that doesn't toe the Democrat party line.
    No they're not. CNN is extremely right wing as well, but Fox is just more cartoonish about it so it's convenient to point out. The media is not "liberal" not even close.

    BTW, way to try and change the subject!


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    They have a more balanced view.
    No they don't. Just becaue that's there tag line doesn' mean it's true. Not even close. Balanced like one shoe off and one eye closed. There is absolutely no balance there. There's a reason that Fox viewers are more misinformed than any other "news" viewership. Oh you mean Fox didn't run that story? Don't worry the "liberal" networks didn't run it either.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    On the other side, you have ABC, CBS, NBC, Washington Post, New York Times, etc., etc., etc.
    Very conservative networks that run the conservative stories on their "news." Not only that but the right owns the AM bandwidth on the radio as well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Like the conservatives that live and breathe Fox "News" do this right? I would call you a hypocrite but I believe you know better which is just straight fraud.
    Does Fox do puff pieces?
    Constantly. Their whole network is a puff piece.
    Give me an example of a puff piece they ran on a Republican candidate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I really don't know, because I don't have cable TV. I found a puff piece on Hillary without even trying.
    Was it really a puff piece or just anything not running negative on a liberal is "support" for them?
    Did you see the ABC report? Robin Roberts was worshipping at the feet of Hillary, begging her to run for office. Totally unprofessional.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I'm sure there will be plenty more as the election time gets closer. Buckle up.
    Doubtful.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I like how you always talk about Fox news. It's the only channel that doesn't toe the Democrat party line.
    No they're not. CNN is extremely right wing as well, but Fox is just more cartoonish about it so it's convenient to point out. The media is not "liberal" not even close.
    Really? Then why did CNN run this Hillary puff piece?
    'Clinton News Network': CNN Puffs Up Hillary's 2016 Prospects | NewsBusters
    BTW, way to try and change the subject!
    Who changed the subject? Just a reminder. The subject is the TED talk by the guy who wants to restrict political speech and leave the news media with a monopoly on influencing public opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    They have a more balanced view.
    No they don't. Just becaue that's there tag line doesn' mean it's true. Not even close. Balanced like one shoe off and one eye closed. There is absolutely no balance there. There's a reason that Fox viewers are more misinformed than any other "news" viewership. Oh you mean Fox didn't run that story? Don't worry the "liberal" networks didn't run it either.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    On the other side, you have ABC, CBS, NBC, Washington Post, New York Times, etc., etc., etc.
    Very conservative networks that run the conservative stories on their "news." Not only that but the right owns the AM bandwidth on the radio as well.
    Yeah. Conservative networks who frequently do puff pieces blatantly promoting Democratic political candidates. For example
    NBC's Andrea Mitchell Uses Hillary Clinton Illness to Do Puff Piece on 'Indefatigable' Secretary of State | Media Research Center
    WashPost Devotes 26-Paragraph Front Page Puff Piece to Hillary Clinton Joining Twitter | NewsBusters

    Got any examples of puff pieces on Republican candidates?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Like the conservatives that live and breathe Fox "News" do this right? I would call you a hypocrite but I believe you know better which is just straight fraud.
    Does Fox do puff pieces?
    Constantly. Their whole network is a puff piece.
    Give me an example of a puff piece they ran on a Republican candidate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I really don't know, because I don't have cable TV. I found a puff piece on Hillary without even trying.
    Was it really a puff piece or just anything not running negative on a liberal is "support" for them?
    Did you see the ABC report? Robin Roberts was worshipping at the feet of Hillary, begging her to run for office. Totally unprofessional.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I'm sure there will be plenty more as the election time gets closer. Buckle up.
    Doubtful.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I like how you always talk about Fox news. It's the only channel that doesn't toe the Democrat party line.
    No they're not. CNN is extremely right wing as well, but Fox is just more cartoonish about it so it's convenient to point out. The media is not "liberal" not even close.
    Really? Then why did CNN run this Hillary puff piece?
    'Clinton News Network': CNN Puffs Up Hillary's 2016 Prospects | NewsBusters
    BTW, way to try and change the subject!
    Who changed the subject? Just a reminder. The subject is the TED talk by the guy who wants to restrict political speech and leave the news media with a monopoly on influencing public opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    They have a more balanced view.
    No they don't. Just becaue that's there tag line doesn' mean it's true. Not even close. Balanced like one shoe off and one eye closed. There is absolutely no balance there. There's a reason that Fox viewers are more misinformed than any other "news" viewership. Oh you mean Fox didn't run that story? Don't worry the "liberal" networks didn't run it either.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    On the other side, you have ABC, CBS, NBC, Washington Post, New York Times, etc., etc., etc.
    Very conservative networks that run the conservative stories on their "news." Not only that but the right owns the AM bandwidth on the radio as well.
    Yeah. Conservative networks who frequently do puff pieces blatantly promoting Democratic political candidates. For example
    NBC's Andrea Mitchell Uses Hillary Clinton Illness to Do Puff Piece on 'Indefatigable' Secretary of State | Media Research Center
    WashPost Devotes 26-Paragraph Front Page Puff Piece to Hillary Clinton Joining Twitter | NewsBusters

    Got any examples of puff pieces on Republican candidates?
    The fact that you can't see it means you won't. but I'll give you one, Here they are trotting out their token.

    Straight talk about gay Republican congressional candidate Carl DeMaio | Fox News

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_New...ivity_and_bias
    tho most ideological channel in america screaming about bias!! that's rich!
    Last edited by grmpysmrf; May 10th, 2014 at 01:26 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    The fact that you can't see it means you won't. but I'll give you one, Here they are trotting out their token.

    Straight talk about gay Republican congressional candidate Carl DeMaio | Fox News

    Fox News Channel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    tho most ideological channel in america screaming about bias!! that's rich!
    I think it's pretty rude to call the man a token. That's your typical Democrat intolerance for different viewpoints. You think you own gay and black people, and they're not allowed to have their own opinion. Better herd them back onto the Democrat reservation.

    The piece you linked to was clearly labeled as opinion, and that is a lot different than opinion disguised as fake news, by a fake news person like Robin Roberts who presents herself as a straight-up news reporter.

    There's nothing "rich" about what they said. It's quite true. Open up your eyes and see.
    Dave Wilson and Howard Roark like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    The fact that you can't see it means you won't. but I'll give you one, Here they are trotting out their token.

    Straight talk about gay Republican congressional candidate Carl DeMaio | Fox News

    Fox News Channel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    tho most ideological channel in america screaming about bias!! that's rich!
    I think it's pretty rude to call the man a token. That's your typical Democrat intolerance for different viewpoints.
    Yes, because Dems are known for their intolerance and anti different view points.
    Nice Fox tactic. accuse your opponent of the shit you're guilty of everyday.
    Who openly supports stop and frisk of minorities?
    Who wants to demand "papers" of anybody with a skin tone darker than khaki over in Arizona?
    Who opposes gay marriage?
    Who opposes gay people openly serving in the military?
    And now you want to trot out a gay republican and say you've been on their side the whole time.
    Get outta my face with that fraud! The fact that you believe selected bits of bullshit over recent history speaks volumes of your ability to think critically for yourself. And comes as no shock what-so-ever as to why you're republican

    What's worse, calling Repubs out for their tokenism or the repubs actually practicing it? right. Again way to avoid the point.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You think you own gay and black people, and they're not allowed to have their own opinion.
    ugh, no! that's a current republican position, you know anti federal government and all that B.S. "no gubment can't tell me I can't own another person... State tells me I can... freedumb and stuff."


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Better herd them back onto the Democrat reservation.
    Modern day dems don't represent Wealthy plantation owners.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The piece you linked to was clearly labeled as opinion, and that is a lot different than opinion disguised as fake news, by a fake news person like Robin Roberts who presents herself as a straight-up news reporter.
    So if that's all it takes let's change the name to Fox Editorial. now we have truth in their brand. Hillary has not declared her candidacy. That reporter was clearly trying to get a news scoop so she could have broken the news. Not begging her to run because she has any political interest.

    Puff piece on Chris Christie

    Chris Christie on a 2016 Presidential Run: 'I'll Consider It' | Fox News Insider

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    There's nothing "rich" about what they said. It's quite true. Open up your eyes and see.
    Hilarious coming from the guy who sees "liberal conspiracies" in the most conservative of news media outlets.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Now there's what a real journalist looks like. Megyn asks Christie some tough questions. At the end of the interview, you're not sure if she is for or against Christie. Now compare to the Robin Roberts interview of Hillary Clinton.
    Hillary Clinton interviewed by Robin Roberts| GMA Anchor Interviews Hillary Clinton 2014 - YouTube
    Roberts is laughing and joking with Hillary, beaming like a schoolgirl. She never challenges any of her answers, or indicates in any way that someone might disagree with what she says. She asks some puff question about Chelsea. They have a liberal audience there, cheering for Hillary. At the end she turns to who else but George Stephanopoulos, former Bill Clinton campaigner. Chris Cuomo is also on Good Morning America, the son and brother of Democrat governors of New York. And you want to tell me ABC is conservative? Come on.
    Dave Wilson and Howard Roark like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Now there's what a real journalist looks like. Megyn asks Christie some tough questions. At the end of the interview, you're not sure if she is for or against Christie. Now compare to the Robin Roberts interview of Hillary Clinton.
    Hillary Clinton interviewed by Robin Roberts| GMA Anchor Interviews Hillary Clinton 2014 - YouTube
    Roberts is laughing and joking with Hillary, beaming like a schoolgirl. She never challenges any of her answers, or indicates in any way that someone might disagree with what she says. She asks some puff question about Chelsea. They have a liberal audience there, cheering for Hillary. At the end she turns to who else but George Stephanopoulos, former Bill Clinton campaigner. Chris Cuomo is also on Good Morning America, the son and brother of Democrat governors of New York. And you want to tell me ABC is conservative? Come on.
    Wow, just incredible your filter is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Now there's what a real journalist looks like. Megyn asks Christie some tough questions. At the end of the interview, you're not sure if she is for or against Christie. Now compare to the Robin Roberts interview of Hillary Clinton.
    Hillary Clinton interviewed by Robin Roberts| GMA Anchor Interviews Hillary Clinton 2014 - YouTube
    Roberts is laughing and joking with Hillary, beaming like a schoolgirl. She never challenges any of her answers, or indicates in any way that someone might disagree with what she says. She asks some puff question about Chelsea. They have a liberal audience there, cheering for Hillary. At the end she turns to who else but George Stephanopoulos, former Bill Clinton campaigner. Chris Cuomo is also on Good Morning America, the son and brother of Democrat governors of New York. And you want to tell me ABC is conservative? Come on.
    Wow, just incredible your filter is.
    I've given you several objective reasons why the ABC interview was a puff piece and the Fox interview was not. You have no answer but "wow." Come on, try to make some arguments.

    Fox: follow-up question challenging the interviewee's original reply. ABC: No follow-up questions. Fox: serious demeanor. ABC: Yukking it up with interviewee. Fox: No fluffy questions about grandchildren. ABC: Fluffy question. Fox: No studio audience. ABC: Cheering section for Hillary. Fox: just asking questions. ABC: suggesting that Hillary should run so she can break glass ceiling. ABC: Softball question about running mate to give Hillary a chance plug two more Democrats. (Three-fer puff piece.)

    Did you notice how Roberts asked the question about the Benghazi hearings? "Are you satisfied that all the questions have been asked?"?!!!! Is there any softer way you could ask the question? Hillary doesn't have to deny anything, but just agree with Roberts. I think it was intentional. You know the way that telemarketers try to get you to say "yes" right off the bat, like "have you been receiving your magazine subscription on time?" Then you have to say yes, because of course you are. It keeps everything positive. Everybody's smiling the whole way. No negativity whatsoever. It's like an infomercial, but you think you are watching a real news program.
    Dave Wilson and Howard Roark like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Now there's what a real journalist looks like. Megyn asks Christie some tough questions. At the end of the interview, you're not sure if she is for or against Christie. Now compare to the Robin Roberts interview of Hillary Clinton.
    Hillary Clinton interviewed by Robin Roberts| GMA Anchor Interviews Hillary Clinton 2014 - YouTube
    Roberts is laughing and joking with Hillary, beaming like a schoolgirl. She never challenges any of her answers, or indicates in any way that someone might disagree with what she says. She asks some puff question about Chelsea. They have a liberal audience there, cheering for Hillary. At the end she turns to who else but George Stephanopoulos, former Bill Clinton campaigner. Chris Cuomo is also on Good Morning America, the son and brother of Democrat governors of New York. And you want to tell me ABC is conservative? Come on.
    Wow, just incredible your filter is.
    I've given you several objective reasons why the ABC interview was a puff piece and the Fox interview was not. You have no answer but "wow." Come on, try to make some arguments.
    Give me a break!!
    I've made a ton of points over you and you ignore all of them. Don't even get a "<snip>" when you ignore them
    Megyn Kelly is just as bad as the other "Journalists." Just because she's pretty doesn't mean she's better. Although Fox plays that card constantly... "not smart enough to understand what were saying? Don't worry the person that is 'right' is attractive and the person that is 'wrong' is ugly and disheveled." just look at the Hannity & Colmes show from back when and they've just run with that formula ever since.

    There were no "hard Hitting" questions in that piece. There whole network is one big water carrier for the conservatives. "democrats evil, republicans Good." There is no reason to hold their politicians' feet to the fire. The fact that you can't see that, yes, deserves little more than a "wow." ABC (as is almost all news outlets/segments/channels) is owned and run by multinational corporations... how many multi nationals that you know that are "liberals?" None. they don't exist because all corporations care about is their bottom line. And people are not their bottom line, nor is giving their shit away for free (you know cause those lazy poor people won't work for it.) So, being "Liberal" is counter productive to their agenda.

    Because they're not as overt as FOX and CNN doesn't mean it's "liberal"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Give me a break!!
    I've made a ton of points over you and you ignore all of them. Don't even get a "<snip>" when you ignore them
    I ignored your hateful standard anti-Republican diatribe because it's off-topic for this thread. We're discussing media bias as it relates to the original TED talk about restricting political speech.
    Megyn Kelly is just as bad as the other "Journalists." Just because she's pretty doesn't mean she's better. Although Fox plays that card constantly... "not smart enough to understand what were saying? Don't worry the person that is 'right' is attractive and the person that is 'wrong' is ugly and disheveled." just look at the Hannity & Colmes show from back when and they've just run with that formula ever since.
    You say that without supplying any objective evidence.
    There were no "hard Hitting" questions in that piece. There whole network is one big water carrier for the conservatives. "democrats evil, republicans Good." There is no reason to hold their politicians' feet to the fire. The fact that you can't see that, yes, deserves little more than a "wow." ABC (as is almost all news outlets/segments/channels) is owned and run by multinational corporations... how many multi nationals that you know that are "liberals?" None. they don't exist because all corporations care about is their bottom line. And people are not their bottom line, nor is giving their shit away for free (you know cause those lazy poor people won't work for it.) So, being "Liberal" is counter productive to their agenda.
    Nice theory but it doesn't explain why they did the puff interview on Hillary, as I have shown conclusively that they did.
    Because they're not as overt as FOX and CNN doesn't mean it's "liberal"
    How do you get that CNN is conservative? I erred above when I said Chris Cuomo was with ABC. He's with CNN. Democrat through and through. These networks have no shame about hiring Democrat politicians to pose as news people. Also, there's the Hillary puff piece they did, which I pointed out earlier.
    Dave Wilson and Howard Roark like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Give me a break!!
    I've made a ton of points over you and you ignore all of them. Don't even get a "<snip>" when you ignore them
    I ignored your hateful standard anti-Republican diatribe because it's off-topic for this thread. We're discussing media bias as it relates to the original TED talk about restricting political speech.
    The hell you have! and my points are not off topic they are just inconvenient for you.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Megyn Kelly is just as bad as the other "Journalists." Just because she's pretty doesn't mean she's better. Although Fox plays that card constantly... "not smart enough to understand what were saying? Don't worry the person that is 'right' is attractive and the person that is 'wrong' is ugly and disheveled." just look at the Hannity & Colmes show from back when and they've just run with that formula ever since.
    You say that without supplying any objective evidence.
    the evidence is in the crap that they run. You can see it. Well, *you* can't but those that are not blinded by the "liberal" media can.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    There were no "hard Hitting" questions in that piece. There whole network is one big water carrier for the conservatives. "democrats evil, republicans Good." There is no reason to hold their politicians' feet to the fire. The fact that you can't see that, yes, deserves little more than a "wow." ABC (as is almost all news outlets/segments/channels) is owned and run by multinational corporations... how many multi nationals that you know that are "liberals?" None. they don't exist because all corporations care about is their bottom line. And people are not their bottom line, nor is giving their shit away for free (you know cause those lazy poor people won't work for it.) So, being "Liberal" is counter productive to their agenda.
    Nice theory but it doesn't explain why they did the puff interview on Hillary, as I have shown conclusively that they did.
    Because it wasn't a puff piece, it was you seeing what you want. According to you, anybody that is polite to a democrat is running a puff piece. That is not so. So, your premise is faulty to begin with. How come when Cheney and W are always on their network it's "respect" and not throne sniffing? When Cheney and W were busy shredding the constitution and committing War crimes Fox was the first to yell, "If you don't support that then it's treason!"?

    Yeah, here's our "liberal media" at work.

    Media coverage of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    A study conducted in 2003 by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) tracking the frequencies of pro-war and antiwar commentators on the major networks found that pro-war views were overwhelmingly more frequent. The FAIR study found that the two networks notably least likely to present critical commentary were Fox and CBS.
    How about that? running puff pieces on the war?! no not Fox! they don't run Puff pieces!
    MSNBC also fired liberal Phil Donahue,a critic of Bush's Iraq policy, a month before the invasion began and replaced his show with an expanded Countdown: Iraq, initially hosted by Lester Holt.
    Not MSNBC!! they're the "liberal version of Fox!" and yet they got rid of a "Liberal"? Makes no sense in a liberal media world!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Because they're not as overt as FOX and CNN doesn't mean it's "liberal"
    How do you get that CNN is conservative? I erred above when I said Chris Cuomo was with ABC. He's with CNN. Democrat through and through. These networks have no shame about hiring Democrat politicians to pose as news people.
    Because of the crap they report, or rather "not report." As far as Dems "posing as "news people"
    They are clearly "labeled" as opinion. So, it's "OK"Right? that's what you said about the first story I linked when it was Fox right. Did you conveniently forget Rove, Bachman, Palin, Coulter and a whole slew of other repubs Who show-up up constantly as "reporters" for Fox. No, it's only "Proof" of liberal bias, right? Funny thing is is that the other networks "pretend" to be neutral in that they will bring both dems and repubs on where as Fox "News" will not. "See it's not overtly conservative 24/7 so it has to be liberal bias."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    The hell you have! and my points are not off topic they are just inconvenient for you.
    What did it all have to do with bias in the media?

    the evidence is in the crap that they run. You can see it. Well, *you* can't but those that are not blinded by the "liberal" media can.
    You just give generalizations and highly biased ones at that. Whereas, I have pointed out specific unprofessional interviewing practices, like asking softball questions without follow-up questions, having a cheering audience for the person being interviewed, talking about their personal lives, suggesting why they should run for office, and so forth.
    There were no "hard Hitting" questions in that piece.
    Christie is not the front-running Republican. There is no clear front-runner at this point. Christie did not do himself any favors with Republican primary voters in that interview. I think it hurt him. He gave a lame answer and Megyn called him on it.
    There whole network is one big water carrier for the conservatives. "democrats evil, republicans Good." There is no reason to hold their politicians' feet to the fire. The fact that you can't see that, yes, deserves little more than a "wow." ABC (as is almost all news outlets/segments/channels) is owned and run by multinational corporations... how many multi nationals that you know that are "liberals?" None. they don't exist because all corporations care about is their bottom line. And people are not their bottom line, nor is giving their shit away for free (you know cause those lazy poor people won't work for it.) So, being "Liberal" is counter productive to their agenda.
    More generalities, no specifics. The proof is in the pudding. If you see biased news reporting, you look for reasons why; you don't deny what you see with your own eyes.

    Because it wasn't a puff piece, it was you seeing what you want. According to you, anybody that is polite to a democrat is running a puff piece.
    I'll believe that when I see them being "polite" to a Republican.
    That is not so. So, your premise is faulty to begin with. How come when Cheney and W are always on their network it's "respect" and not throne sniffing? When Cheney and W were busy shredding the constitution and committing War crimes Fox was the first to yell, "If you don't support that then it's treason!"?
    Generalizations again.
    Yeah, here's our "liberal media" at work.

    Media coverage of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    A study conducted in 2003 by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) tracking the frequencies of pro-war and antiwar commentators on the major networks found that pro-war views were overwhelmingly more frequent. The FAIR study found that the two networks notably least likely to present critical commentary were Fox and CBS.
    How about that? running puff pieces on the war?! no not Fox! they don't run Puff pieces!
    You conveniently forget that Democrats supported the Iraq war. Here's Hillary saying why she approved the Iraq war.
    Hillary Clinton Iraq War Vote Speech - YouTube
    Everything went through Congress, unlike the way Obama does it. They had access to the same intelligence reports as Bush did.

    MSNBC also fired liberal Phil Donahue,a critic of Bush's Iraq policy, a month before the invasion began and replaced his show with an expanded Countdown: Iraq, initially hosted by Lester Holt.
    maybe because nobody watched Donahue.
    Not MSNBC!! they're the "liberal version of Fox!" and yet they got rid of a "Liberal"? Makes no sense in a liberal media world!!
    They got rid of one and hired a dozen more.

    Because of the crap they report, or rather "not report." As far as Dems "posing as "news people"
    They are clearly "labeled" as opinion. So, it's "OK"Right? that's what you said about the first story I linked when it was Fox right. Did you conveniently forget Rove, Bachman, Palin, Coulter and a whole slew of other repubs Who show-up up constantly as "reporters" for Fox.
    No, I think they are commentators. Stephanopoulos and Cuomo are news anchors.
    No, it's only "Proof" of liberal bias, right? Funny thing is is that the other networks "pretend" to be neutral in that they will bring both dems and repubs on where as Fox "News" will not. "See it's not overtly conservative 24/7 so it has to be liberal bias."
    Generalizations. Give me specifics. If there is one network that leans to the right, it does not balance out all the rest which lean to the left.
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    The hell you have! and my points are not off topic they are just inconvenient for you.
    What did it all have to do with bias in the media?
    try rereading them and then come back to me.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    the evidence is in the crap that they run. You can see it. Well, *you* can't but those that are not blinded by the "liberal" media can.
    You just give generalizations and highly biased ones at that. Whereas, I have pointed out specific unprofessional interviewing practices, like asking softball questions without follow-up questions, having a cheering audience for the person being interviewed, talking about their personal lives, suggesting why they should run for office, and so forth.
    "Suggesting she should run for office?" "Well the news said I should, I guess I will" are you thick? you just said yourself a couple of paragraphs down that she's the front runner for the the Democratic party. The lady "journalist" was trying to get a scoop , to butter her up so her outlet could say they were the first to report her declaration.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    There were no "hard Hitting" questions in that piece.
    Christie is not the front-running Republican. There is no clear front-runner at this point. Christie did not do himself any favors with Republican primary voters in that interview. I think it hurt him. He gave a lame answer and Megyn called him on it.
    If that were a Dem piece you would be all over it for a "softball" interview.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    There whole network is one big water carrier for the conservatives. "democrats evil, republicans Good." There is no reason to hold their politicians' feet to the fire. The fact that you can't see that, yes, deserves little more than a "wow." ABC (as is almost all news outlets/segments/channels) is owned and run by multinational corporations... how many multi nationals that you know that are "liberals?" None. they don't exist because all corporations care about is their bottom line. And people are not their bottom line, nor is giving their shit away for free (you know cause those lazy poor people won't work for it.) So, being "Liberal" is counter productive to their agenda.
    More generalities, no specifics. The proof is in the pudding.
    I've provided examples. on top of that, all one has to do is pay attention.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If you see biased news reporting, you look for reasons why; you don't deny what you see with your own eyes.
    Weird how you don't look for reasons when it's fox and CNN. Really? it seems you deny what you see with your own eyes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Because it wasn't a puff piece, it was you seeing what you want. According to you, anybody that is polite to a democrat is running a puff piece.
    I'll believe that when I see them being "polite" to a Republican.
    You obviously don't watch Fox enough or you're just blind to it by now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    That is not so. So, your premise is faulty to begin with. How come when Cheney and W are always on their network it's "respect" and not throne sniffing? When Cheney and W were busy shredding the constitution and committing War crimes Fox was the first to yell, "If you don't support that then it's treason!"?
    Generalizations again.
    That's not a generalization. You can look it up. It's fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Yeah, here's our "liberal media" at work.

    Media coverage of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    A study conducted in 2003 by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) tracking the frequencies of pro-war and antiwar commentators on the major networks found that pro-war views were overwhelmingly more frequent. The FAIR study found that the two networks notably least likely to present critical commentary were Fox and CBS.
    How about that? running puff pieces on the war?! no not Fox! they don't run Puff pieces!
    You conveniently forget that Democrats supported the Iraq war. Here's Hillary saying why she approved the Iraq war.
    Yeah exactly, prove my point for me! What kind of Dem supports an unfounded war? We have conservative and Diet conservative. Look what happened to the Dixie chicks. the media didn't support anything those liberals had to say and crucified those women. and all they did was apologize for being from the same state as that moron. How come the "liberal media" didn't back them up?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Everything went through Congress, unlike the way Obama does it.
    Don't play that game. "Unlike the way Obama does it?" How many recess appointments did Bush make Versus how many Obama has done? W went through congress when it was convenient and just exercised executive privilege for anything else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    MSNBC also fired liberal Phil Donahue,a critic of Bush's Iraq policy, a month before the invasion began and replaced his show with an expanded Countdown: Iraq, initially hosted by Lester Holt.
    maybe because nobody watched Donahue.
    Not MSNBC!! they're the "liberal version of Fox!" and yet they got rid of a "Liberal"? Makes no sense in a liberal media world!!
    They got rid of one and hired a dozen more.
    Yeah cause that makes sense!
    Funny they decided that nobody watched him after he was critical of the commander in chief.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    No, it's only "Proof" of liberal bias, right? Funny thing is is that the other networks "pretend" to be neutral in that they will bring both dems and repubs on where as Fox "News" will not. "See it's not overtly conservative 24/7 so it has to be liberal bias."
    Generalizations. Give me specifics. If there is one network that leans to the right, it does not balance out all the rest which lean to the left.
    You have been given specifics and you dismiss them.
    "Balancing out" is not news. it's agenda driven. Just because you [strike]think[/strike] have been told it's all liberal doesn't mean it actually is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    "Suggesting she should run for office?" "Well the news said I should, I guess I will" are you thick? you just said yourself a couple of paragraphs down that she's the front runner for the the Democratic party. The lady "journalist" was trying to get a scoop , to butter her up so her outlet could say they were the first to report her declaration.
    Of course she wasn't trying to convince Hillary of anything. She just wanted the viewing audience to know what a splendid thing she thought it would be if Hillary would break the glass ceiling. My guess is that Hillary knew the question was coming. She probably wrote it herself, or one of her aides did. Because that's just the way Hillary rolls. She never goes into an interview without knowing what's going to happen.

    Is "buttering up" politicians something they teach in journalism school?

    If that were a Dem piece you would be all over it for a "softball" interview.
    If I did, I'd provide some reasons why. What, specifically, do you think was wrong with it other than it was Fox, and they were interviewing a Republican? I didn't see any "buttering up" going on.

    I've provided examples. on top of that, all one has to do is pay attention.
    When I ask for specifics, that means who said what when, and what was the context.

    Weird how you don't look for reasons when it's fox and CNN. Really? it seems you deny what you see with your own eyes.
    Weird how you can't identify any reasons yourself.

    You obviously don't watch Fox enough or you're just blind to it by now.
    No, I don't. I already said I don't have cable tv, so you're going to have to tell me what you think is the problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    That is not so. So, your premise is faulty to begin with. How come when Cheney and W are always on their network it's "respect" and not throne sniffing? When Cheney and W were busy shredding the constitution and committing War crimes Fox was the first to yell, "If you don't support that then it's treason!"?
    Generalizations again.
    That's not a generalization. You can look it up. It's fact.
    What's a fact? Who said what when? If I found a quote from Juan Williams, could I say "Fox" said [whatever Juan Williams said]?

    Yeah exactly, prove my point for me! What kind of Dem supports an unfounded war? We have conservative and Diet conservative. Look what happened to the Dixie chicks. the media didn't support anything those liberals had to say and crucified those women. and all they did was apologize for being from the same state as that moron. How come the "liberal media" didn't back them up?
    The topic of discussion is influence on elections, so if both major parties are supporting something, then it's a wash. Third parties never win any elections. The media crucified the Dixie Chicks? How so?
    Don't play that game. "Unlike the way Obama does it?" How many recess appointments did Bush make Versus how many Obama has done? W went through congress when it was convenient and just exercised executive privilege for anything else.
    We were discussing the Iraq war. Bush got Congressional approval for it. Obama says he doesn't need to do that.
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    "Suggesting she should run for office?" "Well the news said I should, I guess I will" are you thick? you just said yourself a couple of paragraphs down that she's the front runner for the the Democratic party. The lady "journalist" was trying to get a scoop , to butter her up so her outlet could say they were the first to report her declaration.
    Of course she wasn't trying to convince Hillary of anything. She just wanted the viewing audience to know what a splendid thing she thought it would be if Hillary would break the glass ceiling. My guess is that Hillary knew the question was coming. She probably wrote it herself, or one of her aides did. Because that's just the way Hillary rolls. She never goes into an interview without knowing what's going to happen.
    That's any politician. You should know that by now

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Is "buttering up" politicians something they teach in journalism school?
    If so, the Fox "Journalists" got all of their points there. That and the yellow Journalism they produce.
    It astounds me that you can't see this out of your beloved Fox


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post

    If that were a Dem piece you would be all over it for a "softball" interview.
    If I did, I'd provide some reasons why. What, specifically, do you think was wrong with it other than it was Fox, and they were interviewing a Republican? I didn't see any "buttering up" going on.
    seriously. go to youtube and type in Fox kissing republican ass. you will be busy for days watching the lips pucker. but I assume you'd still miss it and claim "liberal bias"


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post

    I've provided examples. on top of that, all one has to do is pay attention.
    When I ask for specifics, that means who said what when, and what was the context.
    You think I keep a list?

    Here's a particularly ripe ass kissing piece with no effort on my part at all to find it. (I thought Republicans were s'posed to be all Pro hard work 'n stuff, and here I am producing for you.... I guess something never change republicans getting others to do there work for them.) It' even labeled ass kissing for your convenience




    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post

    Weird how you don't look for reasons when it's fox and CNN. Really? it seems you deny what you see with your own eyes.
    Weird how you can't identify any reasons yourself.
    weird how I did but you refuse to accept them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    You obviously don't watch Fox enough or you're just blind to it by now.
    No, I don't. I already said I don't have cable tv, so you're going to have to tell me what you think is the problem.
    Too much AM radio? Lack of critical thinking skills? Lack of education? I don't know. Where do you get this "liberal media" idea if not the media?


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    That is not so. So, your premise is faulty to begin with. How come when Cheney and W are always on their network it's "respect" and not throne sniffing? When Cheney and W were busy shredding the constitution and committing War crimes Fox was the first to yell, "If you don't support that then it's treason!"?
    Generalizations again.
    That's not a generalization. You can look it up. It's fact.
    What's a fact? Who said what when? If I found a quote from Juan Williams, could I say "Fox" said [whatever Juan Williams said]?
    here you go! complete with dates.
    Convenient Patriotism | BobCesca.com | News and Politics Blog and Podcast | We Cover the World

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Yeah exactly, prove my point for me! What kind of Dem supports an unfounded war? We have conservative and Diet conservative. Look what happened to the Dixie chicks. the media didn't support anything those liberals had to say and crucified those women. and all they did was apologize for being from the same state as that moron. How come the "liberal media" didn't back them up?
    The topic of discussion is influence on elections, so if both major parties are supporting something, then it's a wash. Third parties never win any elections. The media crucified the Dixie Chicks? How so?
    A sub point of the thread is "the media is liberal"

    one example from that Liberal bastion CNN: CNN.com - Dixie Chicks pulled from air after bashing Bush - Mar. 14, 2003



    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Don't play that game. "Unlike the way Obama does it?" How many recess appointments did Bush make Versus how many Obama has done? W went through congress when it was convenient and just exercised executive privilege for anything else.
    We were discussing the Iraq war. Bush got Congressional approval for it. Obama says he doesn't need to do that.
    Of course he doesn't... He's not starting a war
    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    That's any politician. You should know that by now
    I'm sure they'd all like to do it. It doesn't mean they can all get away with it.

    If so, the Fox "Journalists" got all of their points there. That and the yellow Journalism they produce.
    It astounds me that you can't see this out of your beloved Fox
    More generalizations.
    seriously. go to youtube and type in Fox kissing republican ass. you will be busy for days watching the lips pucker. but I assume you'd still miss it and claim "liberal bias"
    generalizations

    Here's a particularly ripe ass kissing piece with no effort on my part at all to find it. (I thought Republicans were s'posed to be all Pro hard work 'n stuff, and here I am producing for you.... I guess something never change republicans getting others to do there work for them.) It' even labeled ass kissing for your convenience

    One or two questions snipped out of the interview by a partisan leftist commentator do not prove it was a softball interview.

    Too much AM radio? Lack of critical thinking skills? Lack of education? I don't know. Where do you get this "liberal media" idea if not the media?
    I get it from watching the liberal media on the broadcast news channels.
    Okay, you found some quotes from some conservative commentators. This doesn't mean that "Fox says" it.

    A sub point of the thread is "the media is liberal"

    one example from that Liberal bastion CNN: CNN.com - Dixie Chicks pulled from air after bashing Bush - Mar. 14, 2003
    Are you counting country music stations as the media? CNN just reported the story about the country music stations, so how does that make them anti_Dixie Chicks?

    Of course he doesn't... He's not starting a war
    He bombed Libya and made the claim that he could attack Syria without Congressional approval.
    Dave Wilson and Howard Roark like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Yeah, just explain it all away with nonsense.
    You see what you want even when it's right in front of you.
    You're splitting hairs and muddying the waters...
    So much for opening your eyes.
    I knew I was wasting my time, you're too far gone.
    You hear what you want and see what you want regardless of the reality of it.
    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Yeah, just explain it all away with nonsense.
    You see what you want even when it's right in front of you.
    You're splitting hairs and muddying the waters...
    So much for opening your eyes.
    I knew I was wasting my time, you're too far gone.
    You hear what you want and see what you want regardless of the reality of it.
    No, it isn't splitting hairs. The "Young Turk" did a poor job of analysis. While he has a colorful method of presentation, his analysis lacks substance. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with asking a softball question, as long as you follow it up with another question that presents the opposing view point. Did Chris Wallace do that? We don't know, because the Young Turk only cherry-picked a couple of isolated sound bites. On the other hand, I analyzed the whole ABC puff piece from beginning to end, so I can say for certain there wasn't any follow-up.

    The best you have done is find some quotes that show that some commentators on Fox lean to the right. That's hardly surprising but that's only one network, among a whole bunch that lean the other way. You've utterly failed to find anything conservative on CNN.

    If you want to see some ass-kissing check this out. Chris Matthews: "He came amongst us." That man is sick.
    Chris Matthews: 'He came amongst us' - YouTube
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Yeah, just explain it all away with nonsense.
    You see what you want even when it's right in front of you.
    You're splitting hairs and muddying the waters...
    So much for opening your eyes.
    I knew I was wasting my time, you're too far gone.
    You hear what you want and see what you want regardless of the reality of it.
    No, it isn't splitting hairs. The "Young Turk" did a poor job of analysis.
    Then pick another video. you don't need one with "analysis."
    Whenever a "democrat" is on fox They pull out every logical fallacy they can to make them look bad but whenever a Repub is on they do whatever they can to lob softball question. Yes I am generalizing, because that is generally what Fox and CNN do even though the media is supposed to be "liberal. Maybe the programming is but the "news certainly is not."

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The best you have done is find some quotes that show that some commentators on Fox lean to the right. That's hardly surprising but that's only one network, among a whole bunch that lean the other way. You've utterly failed to find anything conservative on CNN.

    Which is more than you have done considering you have diagnosed 1 specific piece that really wasn't puff to begin with. and Fox doesn't "lean" to the right they are firmly planted with strong roots.
    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post

    Which is more than you have done considering you have diagnosed 1 specific piece that really wasn't puff to begin with. and Fox doesn't "lean" to the right they are firmly planted with strong roots.
    Actually I have given you several examples. I noticed you didn't have any response to Mathew's "he came amongst us" probably one of the stupidest things ever said on national television, next to "I felt a thrill going up my leg." If you want another one, here's Barbara Walters interviewing one of the 10 most fascinating people - Hillary, of course. According to this ABC puff piece, Hillary traveled all over the world, empowering women, brokering peace in the middle east. Ah, what great success she had there. Notice how peaceful it is. She's "one of the most acclaimed secretaries of state in modern history." She's leaving at the HEIGHT of her career. Note the hard hitting questions. "Are you exhausted?" "Will you consider running for president in 2016?" "What would it take to convince you?" (please, please, Hillary). But there was one tough question, I have to admit. "I have to ask you this very personal question. Your hair." Oh ya. No questions about Benghazi, or Hillary's infamous quote, "We came, we saw, he died." Barbara just had to know about the hair. Now, you're not seriously going to deny this is a puff piece, are you?

    Hillary Clinton on Barbara Walters' 10 Most Fascinating People of 2012 - YouTube

    Here's another Hillary/Obama infomercial, courtesy of CBS 60 minutes. Toughest question asked - What was your greatest foreign policy accomplishment.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9uDUnywMu0
    Last edited by Harold14370; May 18th, 2014 at 07:51 AM.
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    I have to agree with Harold about Hillary, the L media hasn't asked her a difficult question in years. Also the Lester effect is so pronounced, and her financial backing already so generous, that more than 2 years out it looks like the Democrats aren't even going to bother to run anyone else against her-- a damn shame when dozens of others would probably make stronger Presidents such as E Warren, Gov Brown, VP Biden etc. The Rep party is likely to run the same boring group of losers they ran last time with probably the same results.
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I have to agree with Harold about Hillary, the L media hasn't asked her a difficult question in years. Also the Lester effect is so pronounced, and her financial backing already so generous, that more than 2 years out it looks like the Democrats aren't even going to bother to run anyone else against her-- a damn shame when dozens of others would probably make stronger Presidents such as E Warren, Gov Brown, VP Biden etc. The Rep party is likely to run the same boring group of losers they ran last time with probably the same results.
    I couldn't tell ya' about Hillary. I've given up watching "main stream" news for just about 10 years now. It' not liberal. it's not even close. if it were I'd probably have an easier time watching it. Even MSN is tough to watch. I know they are the liberal network catering to a niche market. But they are so Didactic about it, They are clearly trying to be Fox for "the other side." Their on air personalities are horrible. Ed Shultz screams at me. Rachel Maddow presents her stories as if it's gossip around school and she's one of the cool kids (even though she's not) who is better than it all. Chris Mathews asks questions of his guests and then talks over the answers of his guests. It's pathetic.

    I'd love to see a Warren/Grayson ticket. But I know Grayson leaves a bad taste in many peoples' mouths so that's only wishful thinking. The Only reason to embrace Hillary is because she'll be bringing her husband with her.

    Harold, it is pointless to continue this no matter what I present, you will non sequitur, hair split, or muddy the waters. When I point out the crap they do, it's 'cause "they're commentators and it's ok" but then you point out a "lefty" commentator on the only "lefty network" as if it's proof, as if it's something different.
    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Harold, it is pointless to continue this no matter what I present, you will non sequitur, hair split, or muddy the waters. When I point out the crap they do, it's 'cause "they're commentators and it's ok" but then you point out a "lefty" commentator on the only "lefty network" as if it's proof, as if it's something different.
    Okay, you're saying that Matthews is on the "only" lefty network, MSNBC, and he's like the commentators you've been criticizing on Fox. If I concede that Fox balances out MSNBC, who balances out Barbara Walters and Robin Roberts?
    Dave Wilson and Howard Roark like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    282
    Honestly, the whole left/right political spectrum thing is mostly a scam these days. Trace down the owners of these networks and you find they've both contributed millions of dollars to both the Bush campaign AND the Obama campaign. The histrionic "reporting" of Fox and MSNBC are both about as meaningful as the ringside commentary in professional wrestling. The real spectrum isn't conservative vs liberals, its aristocrats vs serfs. What the original video I posted is trying to point out is how biased the electoral system is towards the aristocrats.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by danhanegan View Post
    Honestly, the whole left/right political spectrum thing is mostly a scam these days. Trace down the owners of these networks and you find they've both contributed millions of dollars to both the Bush campaign AND the Obama campaign. The histrionic "reporting" of Fox and MSNBC are both about as meaningful as the ringside commentary in professional wrestling. The real spectrum isn't conservative vs liberals, its aristocrats vs serfs. What the original video I posted is trying to point out is how biased the electoral system is towards the aristocrats.
    Maybe so Dan, but his solution is hogwash. As important as campaign funding is, it pales next to the influence of the news media. Nobody's going to regulate the news media's ability to report news about political candidates. I don't want that either. That would be an obvious violation of the free press. The regulations Lessig wants are no better than cracking down on freedom of speech, something that all tyrants have a go at.

    I notice you call out Fox and MSNBC as though they are the only partisans. Even after I have shown you examples of blatant, obvious, electioneering-style infomercials in the mainstream media. Do you want more examples? They're easy to find.
    Howard Roark likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    News isn't a "balance" it's reporting of the facts. the fact that you think we need a "balance" already puts your information at odds with news. I agree the bulk of the news is not news. But it certainly is to the right of me and I'm left, not super left but left and none of these outlets come close to representing me. Nor should they because they should be just reporting facts, but that's not why they don't represent me. they push an ideology that is not anywhere close to left or left leaning.

    as far as your response to Dan, you have provided ONE example, (not "examples") which really wasn't an example at all.
    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    The selective reporting of facts is even worse than the program length candidate promotions that I've been pointing out. That is actually my main complaint. It's just that the program length candidate promotions are easier to spot. Which one of my examples do you think was an example, and which ones weren't?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    News isn't a "balance" it's reporting of the facts. the fact that you think we need a "balance" already puts your information at odds with news. I agree the bulk of the news is not news. But it certainly is to the right of me and I'm left, not super left but left and none of these outlets come close to representing me. Nor should they because they should be just reporting facts, but that's not why they don't represent me. they push an ideology that is not anywhere close to left or left leaning.
    Because you are super left (somewhat obvious for those who read you here) and probably don't realize it. Even Fox News, which many of the coastal elitist in this nation see are far right, struggled with being too far left for many of its conservative viewership--who were raised far more conservative, and opinions are more in line with personalities such as Glen Beck and Rush. None of the channels run close to libertarian/independents who just want the government to stay out of their lives as much as possible.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    News isn't a "balance" it's reporting of the facts. the fact that you think we need a "balance" already puts your information at odds with news. I agree the bulk of the news is not news. But it certainly is to the right of me and I'm left, not super left but left and none of these outlets come close to representing me. Nor should they because they should be just reporting facts, but that's not why they don't represent me. they push an ideology that is not anywhere close to left or left leaning.
    Because you are super left (somewhat obvious for those who read you here) and probably don't realize it. Even Fox News, which many of the coastal elitist in this nation see are far right, struggled with being too far left for many of its conservative viewership--who were raised far more conservative, and opinions are more in line with personalities such as Glen Beck and Rush.
    I'm only "super left" based on the current social climate. not in any sort of real ideology. The country has moved so far right wing that even the center looks "super left." But I will concede I'm left of center.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    None of the channels run close to libertarian/independents who just want the government to stay out of their lives as much as possible.
    This is kinda my point though. That's a completely disingenuous stance on the part of libertarian/independents. Unless you take it as it is written. "They want the government to stay out of their lives as much as possible." but don't mind it meddling in the lives of other people. Such is their stances on Gay marriage, gays in the military, Prostitution, drug use, gambling, regulations and whole slew of other victimless/non crimes. That may not be considered hard right enough but in reality that is extremely right wing and would make a centrist looks like a commie if they didn't support it. Contrary, I see this narrative constantly being pushed on network "news"

    Harold, All you've offered up was the Hillary piece. I've not noticed anything else in this thread you've brought up as an example of your evidence.
    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Even Fox News, which many of the coastal elitist in this nation see are far right, struggled with being too far left for many of its conservative viewership--who were raised far more conservative, and opinions are more in line with personalities such as Glen Beck and Rush.
    I'm not challenging you here but out of curiosity could you supply a link or an article or a graph or something that shows this?
    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    This is kinda my point though. That's a completely disingenuous stance on the part of libertarian/independents. Unless you take it as it is written. "They want the government to stay out of their lives as much as possible." but don't mind it meddling in the lives of other people. Such is their stances on Gay marriage, gays in the military, Prostitution, drug use, gambling, regulations and whole slew of other victimless/non crimes. That may not be considered hard right enough but in reality that is extremely right wing and would make a centrist looks like a commie if they didn't support it. Contrary, I see this narrative constantly being pushed on network "news"
    Huh? You are confusing the libertarian party with other organization, some of which are actually quite conservative wanna bes such as Ron Paul who's seemingly libertarian ideas are only used to clear the way for tyranny by State and local governments (he's not in the libertarian party either). The libertarian party has supported gay rights marriage, decriminalization of drugs and other victimless crimes since the 1970s. Also the most libertarian state, New Hampshire, is rather notorious for it's out of my life stance with things such as refusing federal high funds for years because of the seat-belt laws they refused to put in place--they really do believe ("live free or die")--and one of the first to support gay-marriage. (I'm from near there and have a rather deep understanding of libertarianism--my town was dirt poor but fiercely independent and anti government involvement except in the most extreme cases such as collapsing lobster stocks during the 70s).

    A recent statement by their party leader showing disappointment in Obama's half-hearted support of marriage equality.
    Libertarian Gary Johnson
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; May 23rd, 2014 at 10:36 AM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Harold, All you've offered up was the Hillary piece. I've not noticed anything else in this thread you've brought up as an example of your evidence.
    "The" Hillary piece? There was the interview by Robin Roberts on ABC, then the one by Jessica Yellen on CNN, then the one by Barbara Walters, then the front page article in the Washington Post about Hillary going on Twitter. Do you want more? As I predicted, the pace is about to pick up.
    Hillary Clinton to sit down with Diane Sawyer for first interview on her new book – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Harold, All you've offered up was the Hillary piece. I've not noticed anything else in this thread you've brought up as an example of your evidence.
    "The" Hillary piece? There was the interview by Robin Roberts on ABC, then the one by Jessica Yellen on CNN, then the one by Barbara Walters, then the front page article in the Washington Post about Hillary going on Twitter. Do you want more? As I predicted, the pace is about to pick up.
    Hillary Clinton to sit down with Diane Sawyer for first interview on her new book – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
    You are viewing with selected vision. Hillary is the noted front runner for both parties, that makes her popular and news worthy. When the republican front runners declare or hint at declaration or become as popular they will assuredly get more time than Hillary. (perhaps the only reason they might not would because she is a female...not because she's a Dem) Again, Liberals don't really care if she's male or female (unless she's getting screwed over because of it) which begs the question why our "liberal" media is so fascinated with it.
    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    This is kinda my point though. That's a completely disingenuous stance on the part of libertarian/independents. Unless you take it as it is written. "They want the government to stay out of their lives as much as possible." but don't mind it meddling in the lives of other people. Such is their stances on Gay marriage, gays in the military, Prostitution, drug use, gambling, regulations and whole slew of other victimless/non crimes. That may not be considered hard right enough but in reality that is extremely right wing and would make a centrist looks like a commie if they didn't support it. Contrary, I see this narrative constantly being pushed on network "news"
    Huh? You are confusing the libertarian party with other organization, some of which are actually quite conservative wanna bes such as Ron Paul who's seemingly libertarian ideas are only used to clear the way for tyranny by State and local governments (he's not in the libertarian party either). The libertarian party has supported gay rights marriage, decriminalization of drugs and other victimless crimes since the 1970s. Also the most libertarian state, New Hampshire, is rather notorious for it's out of my life stance with things such as refusing federal high funds for years because of the seat-belt laws they refused to put in place--they really do believe ("live free or die")--and one of the first to support gay-marriage. (I'm from near there and have a rather deep understanding of libertarianism--my town was dirt poor but fiercely independent and anti government involvement except in the most extreme cases such as collapsing lobster stocks during the 70s).

    A recent statement by their party leader showing disappointment in Obama's half-hearted support of marriage equality.
    Libertarian Gary Johnson
    Kinda goes back to my point of me being super left. What you've described is attributed to Liberals today.
    I'm not familiar with New Hampshire's state politics. but from my understanding current libertarians want to take the tyranny out of the government and put it into the hands of the businesses.
    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    You are viewing with selected vision. Hillary is the noted front runner for both parties, that makes her popular and news worthy. When the republican front runners declare or hint at declaration or become as popular they will assuredly get more time than Hillary. (perhaps the only reason they might not would because she is a female...not because she's a Dem) Again, Liberals don't really care if she's male or female (unless she's getting screwed over because of it) which begs the question why our "liberal" media is so fascinated with it.
    Then you ought to be able to go back to some previous election and find a puff piece interview with a Republican candidate. Just one. That's all I'm asking for. Just one.

    Well, Hillary has written a book now. That will be their excuse for plastering her face all over the television for the next several weeks. Funny how it's never newsworthy if a Republican writes a book.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    You are viewing with selected vision. Hillary is the noted front runner for both parties, that makes her popular and news worthy. When the republican front runners declare or hint at declaration or become as popular they will assuredly get more time than Hillary. (perhaps the only reason they might not would because she is a female...not because she's a Dem) Again, Liberals don't really care if she's male or female (unless she's getting screwed over because of it) which begs the question why our "liberal" media is so fascinated with it.
    Then you ought to be able to go back to some previous election and find a puff piece interview with a Republican candidate. Just one. That's all I'm asking for. Just one.

    Well, Hillary has written a book now. That will be their excuse for plastering her face all over the television for the next several weeks. Funny how it's never newsworthy if a Republican writes a book.
    W, Dole, Bush Senior, Reagan, John McCain, Rick Perry most recently(Until he got caught owning property called "Niggerhead" and even then Fox and CNN tried to do damage control on that) Romney... Rove even going so far as to run into the counting room to say the Numbers guys have it wrong when they called it for obama. It's all over the networks. take your own advice and open your eyes.
    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    W, Dole, Bush Senior, Reagan, John McCain, Rick Perry most recently(Until he got caught owning property called "Niggerhead" and even then Fox and CNN tried to do damage control on that) Romney... Rove even going so far as to run into the counting room to say the Numbers guys have it wrong when they called it for obama. It's all over the networks. take your own advice and open your eyes.
    You couldn't find one, could you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    I notice both of these are from Fox, which makes my point. You won't see it in the mainstream media. The first was talk radio, so I don't think it counts as news media. The second was Greta Van Susteren interviewing Sarah Palin after the 2008 election. I don't think it was really a puff piece. Greta just let Sarah answer the questions. There wasn't any promotion going on. No urging the candidate to run (which would have been 4 years later if ever), no cheering from the audience like on GMA, no effusive praise for the person being interviewed, like on Barbara Walters. Why do you think it was a puff piece?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I notice both of these are from Fox, which makes my point. You won't see it in the mainstream media. The first was talk radio, so I don't think it counts as news media. The second was Greta Van Susteren interviewing Sarah Palin after the 2008 election. I don't think it was really a puff piece. Greta just let Sarah answer the questions. There wasn't any promotion going on. No urging the candidate to run (which would have been 4 years later if ever), no cheering from the audience like on GMA, no effusive praise for the person being interviewed, like on Barbara Walters. Why do you think it was a puff piece?
    I agree with most of your positions in this thread, but Fox is by ratings and viewership most definitely part of the mainstream media. If I were to look for Fox fluff pieces, I'd probably search for the Romney appearances on their network.
    Flick Montana and grmpysmrf like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I notice both of these are from Fox, which makes my point. You won't see it in the mainstream media. The first was talk radio, so I don't think it counts as news media. The second was Greta Van Susteren interviewing Sarah Palin after the 2008 election. I don't think it was really a puff piece. Greta just let Sarah answer the questions. There wasn't any promotion going on. No urging the candidate to run (which would have been 4 years later if ever), no cheering from the audience like on GMA, no effusive praise for the person being interviewed, like on Barbara Walters. Why do you think it was a puff piece?
    I agree with L_F that Fox News is part of the mainstream media. I find both of these pieces as fluff since neither interviewer address the candidates with questions related to political policies that were going to be implemented nor their record on matters of interest. The first is Sharron Angel, the interviewer never asked specific inquires as to what will she do as Senator. Essentially, it was telling the candidate that she was ahead in polls. As for the Greta Van Susteren Palin interview, the discussion was about clothes and how women journalist questioned the candidate. Again no specific questions addressing policies or issues relating to her own campaign strategy. This candidate just lost the 2008 election six days prior, and this interview is about "How was it like to be picked as a VP" and "Tell us about the clothes" related topics. There were well known issues with this candidate being unprepared for the role as VP from other interviews and her own campaign staff. Greta Van Susteren was a criminal defense lawyer, the woman knows how to ask a tough questions, yet none was ever level at this candidate.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    W, Dole, Bush Senior, Reagan, John McCain, Rick Perry most recently(Until he got caught owning property called "Niggerhead" and even then Fox and CNN tried to do damage control on that) Romney... Rove even going so far as to run into the counting room to say the Numbers guys have it wrong when they called it for obama. It's all over the networks. take your own advice and open your eyes.
    You couldn't find one, could you?
    Didn't need to look.
    Why should I do that for you... All you will do is claim "cherry picked questions" or some other nonsense as you already have.

    I see it when it happens, regularly. I don't need to seek it out.
    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I notice both of these are from Fox, which makes my point. You won't see it in the mainstream media.
    hysterical since according to you Fox does not engage in this type of thing.
    and yet here it is and now your stance has changed that the main stream doesn't do it.
    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I notice both of these are from Fox, which makes my point. You won't see it in the mainstream media. The first was talk radio, so I don't think it counts as news media. The second was Greta Van Susteren interviewing Sarah Palin after the 2008 election. I don't think it was really a puff piece. Greta just let Sarah answer the questions. There wasn't any promotion going on. No urging the candidate to run (which would have been 4 years later if ever), no cheering from the audience like on GMA, no effusive praise for the person being interviewed, like on Barbara Walters. Why do you think it was a puff piece?
    I agree with L_F that Fox News is part of the mainstream media. I find both of these pieces as fluff since neither interviewer address the candidates with questions related to political policies that were going to be implemented nor their record on matters of interest. The first is Sharron Angel, the interviewer never asked specific inquires as to what will she do as Senator. Essentially, it was telling the candidate that she was ahead in polls. As for the Greta Van Susteren Palin interview, the discussion was about clothes and how women journalist questioned the candidate. Again no specific questions addressing policies or issues relating to her own campaign strategy. This candidate just lost the 2008 election six days prior, and this interview is about "How was it like to be picked as a VP" and "Tell us about the clothes" related topics. There were well known issues with this candidate being unprepared for the role as VP from other interviews and her own campaign staff. Greta Van Susteren was a criminal defense lawyer, the woman knows how to ask a tough questions, yet none was ever level at this candidate.
    Your'e messing up his narrative and doing a disservice to him by looking this stuff up for him. Because you are forcing him to see it he will stamp his feet and put his fingers in his ears and not learn no matter how blatant it is. He's just going to make excuses as you've seen him already do to me and now you.
    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    I agree with L_F that Fox News is part of the mainstream media. I find both of these pieces as fluff since neither interviewer address the candidates with questions related to political policies that were going to be implemented nor their record on matters of interest. The first is Sharron Angel, the interviewer never asked specific inquires as to what will she do as Senator. Essentially, it was telling the candidate that she was ahead in polls. As for the Greta Van Susteren Palin interview, the discussion was about clothes and how women journalist questioned the candidate. Again no specific questions addressing policies or issues relating to her own campaign strategy. This candidate just lost the 2008 election six days prior, and this interview is about "How was it like to be picked as a VP" and "Tell us about the clothes" related topics. There were well known issues with this candidate being unprepared for the role as VP from other interviews and her own campaign staff. Greta Van Susteren was a criminal defense lawyer, the woman knows how to ask a tough questions, yet none was ever level at this candidate.
    I think you are scraping the bottom of the barrel with that talk radio interview. That just doesn't compare to a prime time interview on national TV.
    Did you really want Greta to rub it in right after a loss? You know, the time to have a puff piece interview to influence an election is before an election, not after it. And the clothes thing was actually an issue in the election. A ridiculous issue created by the media, but an issue nonetheless. They were claiming she was wearing extravagantly expensive clothes.
    Lynx_Fox likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    I agree with L_F that Fox News is part of the mainstream media. I find both of these pieces as fluff since neither interviewer address the candidates with questions related to political policies that were going to be implemented nor their record on matters of interest. The first is Sharron Angel, the interviewer never asked specific inquires as to what will she do as Senator. Essentially, it was telling the candidate that she was ahead in polls. As for the Greta Van Susteren Palin interview, the discussion was about clothes and how women journalist questioned the candidate. Again no specific questions addressing policies or issues relating to her own campaign strategy. This candidate just lost the 2008 election six days prior, and this interview is about "How was it like to be picked as a VP" and "Tell us about the clothes" related topics. There were well known issues with this candidate being unprepared for the role as VP from other interviews and her own campaign staff. Greta Van Susteren was a criminal defense lawyer, the woman knows how to ask a tough questions, yet none was ever level at this candidate.
    I think you are scraping the bottom of the barrel with that talk radio interview. That just doesn't compare to a prime time interview on national TV.
    Did you really want Greta to rub it in right after a loss? You know, the time to have a puff piece interview to influence an election is before an election, not after it. And the clothes thing was actually an issue in the election. A ridiculous issue created by the media, but an issue nonetheless. They were claiming she was wearing extravagantly expensive clothes.
    exactly as I figured
    explain it all away why the crap Fox does doesn't count. The mainstream media is NOT liberal.
    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    I agree with L_F that Fox News is part of the mainstream media. I find both of these pieces as fluff since neither interviewer address the candidates with questions related to political policies that were going to be implemented nor their record on matters of interest. The first is Sharron Angel, the interviewer never asked specific inquires as to what will she do as Senator. Essentially, it was telling the candidate that she was ahead in polls. As for the Greta Van Susteren Palin interview, the discussion was about clothes and how women journalist questioned the candidate. Again no specific questions addressing policies or issues relating to her own campaign strategy. This candidate just lost the 2008 election six days prior, and this interview is about "How was it like to be picked as a VP" and "Tell us about the clothes" related topics. There were well known issues with this candidate being unprepared for the role as VP from other interviews and her own campaign staff. Greta Van Susteren was a criminal defense lawyer, the woman knows how to ask a tough questions, yet none was ever level at this candidate.
    I think you are scraping the bottom of the barrel with that talk radio interview. That just doesn't compare to a prime time interview on national TV.
    I wasn't aware there was a "fluff piece protocol" where it matters what type of media is used, or is this something you just made up? Regardless, print, radio, new media, and TV are fair game especially when the candidate is on the line for Q/A.

    Did you really want Greta to rub it in right after a loss? You know, the time to have a puff piece interview to influence an election is before an election, not after it. And the clothes thing was actually an issue in the election. A ridiculous issue created by the media, but an issue nonetheless. They were claiming she was wearing extravagantly expensive clothes.
    Sure why not? Greta is a news person it is her job it ask questions. The candidate received millions of money from contributors and had people work for no pay on their campaign. There are supporters who are justified in getting an explanation from the candidates themselves. We have sports figures (college and professional) that get asked minutes after a loss, on why it happened and what could of done better. I could care less about the clothes. I'm baffled of all the questions Greta could have asked, she choose that one.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    I wasn't aware there was a "fluff piece protocol" where it matters what type of media is used, or is this something you just made up? Regardless, print, radio, new media, and TV are fair game especially when the candidate is on the line for Q/A.
    Remember, the topic is about campaign financing. An interview on a conservative talk radio show is worth about $1.98. There's not that many people listening, and most of them were going to vote for Angle anyway. OTOH Hillary is getting many millions of dollars worth of free advertising.
    Sure why not? Greta is a news person it is her job it ask questions. The candidate received millions of money from contributors and had people work for no pay on their campaign. There are supporters who are justified in getting an explanation from the candidates themselves. We have sports figures (college and professional) that get asked minutes after a loss, on why it happened and what could of done better. I could care less about the clothes. I'm baffled of all the questions Greta could have asked, she choose that one.
    Again, not much advertising value after the election is over.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370;
    Remember, the topic is about campaign financing. An interview on a conservative talk radio show is worth about $1.98. There's not that many people listening, and most of them were going to vote for Angle anyway. OTOH Hillary is getting many millions of dollars worth of free advertising.
    I'm not sure about that value; I think it is substantially more. Angle made it a point to get on "friendly" outlets for fundraising to that market.

    Sharron Angle: It's going really well. If you're interested in just the Internet part of that -- and of course I've been criticized for saying that I like to be friends with the [press] -- but here's the deal: when I get a friendly press outlet -- not so much the guy that's interviewing me -- it's their audience that I'm trying to reach. So, if I can get on Rush Limbaugh, and I can say, "Harry Reid needs $25 million. I need a million people to send twenty five dollars to SharronAngle.com." The day I was able to say that [even], he made $236,000 dollars. That's why it's so important. Somebody...I'm going on Bill O'Reilly the 16th. They say, "Bill O'Reilly, you better watch out for that guy, he's not necessarily a friendly"...Doesn't matter, his audience is friendly, and if I can get an opportunity to say that at least once on his show -- when I said it on Sean Hannity's television show we made $40,000 before we even got out of the studio in New York
    As for Sarah Palin, she would quit her job as Governor, take a job at Fox News, campaign for the 2012 election (quit again) and retain her job at the network. Her job at Fox News is essentially free advertising for her political goals.







    Sharron Angle brags about her fundraising from "friendly" outlets like Fox News
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370;
    Remember, the topic is about campaign financing. An interview on a conservative talk radio show is worth about $1.98. There's not that many people listening, and most of them were going to vote for Angle anyway. OTOH Hillary is getting many millions of dollars worth of free advertising.
    I'm not sure about that value; I think it is substantially more. Angle made it a point to get on "friendly" outlets for fundraising to that market.

    Sharron Angle: It's going really well. If you're interested in just the Internet part of that -- and of course I've been criticized for saying that I like to be friends with the [press] -- but here's the deal: when I get a friendly press outlet -- not so much the guy that's interviewing me -- it's their audience that I'm trying to reach. So, if I can get on Rush Limbaugh, and I can say, "Harry Reid needs $25 million. I need a million people to send twenty five dollars to SharronAngle.com." The day I was able to say that [even], he made $236,000 dollars. That's why it's so important. Somebody...I'm going on Bill O'Reilly the 16th. They say, "Bill O'Reilly, you better watch out for that guy, he's not necessarily a friendly"...Doesn't matter, his audience is friendly, and if I can get an opportunity to say that at least once on his show -- when I said it on Sean Hannity's television show we made $40,000 before we even got out of the studio in New York
    As for Sarah Palin, she would quit her job as Governor, take a job at Fox News, campaign for the 2012 election (quit again) and retain her job at the network. Her job at Fox News is essentially free advertising for her political goals.







    Sharron Angle brags about her fundraising from "friendly" outlets like Fox News
    He's just going to make another excuse. Why bother?
    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Publicity campaign for genetic modification
    By Piemaster in forum Biology
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: April 29th, 2013, 11:28 PM
  2. NHS Flu Jab Campaign
    By Summers4 in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 11th, 2010, 08:15 AM
  3. The World of Science Fiction, by Lester Del Rey
    By Omphalos in forum Science-Fiction and Non-Fiction
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 7th, 2009, 12:49 AM
  4. way to make large donations to campaign
    By medlakeguy in forum Politics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: June 6th, 2008, 02:21 PM
  5. Save Bimini Campaign
    By Mangrove snapper in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 18th, 2007, 06:26 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •