so ... Mitt Romney.

[BVS]

Well I also think we need to distinguish between the editorials and the news. Yes the editorials on CNN or MSNBC may lean liberal, but that is not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking strictly the news segments. And INDY you've confused those two before, so maybe that's what you are talking about.

[phillyfan26]

Yes, exactly. The big issue I have with Fox is that they spin the news. All the time. I think CNN does it sparingly, and MSNBC and CBS almost never.

In summary, Fox is more conservative than all the "liberal" networks are liberal, combined.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally posted by Irvine511

Romney ought to win here -- it's his next door state, and the boston suburbs now extend into new hampshire.

That's more of a reason he wouldn't win

[2861U2]

Originally posted by maycocksean


And really, who is going to treat you with more basic courtesy and respect and who is more likely to shout you down--Sean Hannity or Anderson Cooper?

That's a terrible comparison. They host different types of shows. Cooper is hard news and Hannity is an opinion show. That's just like saying "Who's more likely to shout you down- Shepard Smith or Keith Olbermann?" Oh wait, I guess Olbermann never does shout anyone down because I have NEVER seen him have a guest who disagrees with him. That's really fair. But he's not politically biased....

Originally posted by phillyfan26
In summary, Fox is more conservative than all the "liberal" networks are liberal, combined.

Thanks for the laugh, philly.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by INDY500



Well it hard NOT to be to the "right" of CNN, CBS or MSNBC isn't it? Yet, somehow ALL the Republican candidates manage to summon up the courage to appear on those networks to debate or answer questions on Sunday morning shows.

are you kidding me?

can we please, please, please stop with the whole "blame the MSM"?

Fox has a specific, written, well-documented agenda shaped by Murdoch and especially Roger Ailes. there is no liberal media. Bill Kirstol admitted this years ago. he said it was the equivalent of "working the refs" in a basketball game.

every last one of those stations you mentioned has no specific ideological agenda -- as compared to Fox, which does -- they are merely there to report on stories that will hopefully result in ratings that are of interest to the companies that already spend money to advertise on such stations. it's these companies and demographics that drive the news, not the pushing of an agenda. in fact, if anything, it's a pro-corporate, sell-sell-sell agenda that drives the news cycle.

which is why i recommend you and everyone else gets their news from PBS and NPR. with no ratings to worry about, journalists can focus on doing their job, not on scooping one another.

[diamond]

yeah, how bout when tim russert left script and tripped up hillary re driver's lic in ny?


all the ppl at msn high fived him

yeah
riiight.

dbs

[Infinity]

Are we really arguing whether or not FOX is biased. We all know it is a biased, piece of shit network. And that Rupert Murdoch uses it to create more of a support for the Iraq War. Who can explain why Ron Paul was excluded from the debate yesterday? That is just ridiculous. Rupert Murdoch should go to Iraq, be shot, and die.

[Diemen]

How mature of you.

[INDY500]

Originally posted by Irvine511




are you kidding me?

can we please, please, please stop with the whole "blame the MSM"?

Fox has a specific, written, well-documented agenda shaped by Murdoch and especially Roger Ailes. there is no liberal media. Bill Kirstol admitted this years ago. he said it was the equivalent of "working the refs" in a basketball game.

every last one of those stations you mentioned has no specific ideological agenda -- as compared to Fox, which does -- they are merely there to report on stories that will hopefully result in ratings that are of interest to the companies that already spend money to advertise on such stations. it's these companies and demographics that drive the news, not the pushing of an agenda. in fact, if anything, it's a pro-corporate, sell-sell-sell agenda that drives the news cycle.

which is why i recommend you and everyone else gets their news from PBS and NPR. with no ratings to worry about, journalists can focus on doing their job, not on scooping one another.

Or you can read Bernie Goldberg's books, or the myriad of polls that ask journalists to define themselves. I used to watch MSNBC for my political news but since the Iraq war they have made a noticeable and intentional move to be the "antiFox." During the 2004 Swiftboat "scandal" I saw Lawrence O'Donnell literally go insane on TV (I'm sure you can youtube it.) Chris Mathews called the White house "criminal" days before he moderated a Republican debate in 2007, now, that's not biased to you because you agree with that. Even Tucker Carlson's show is guest-hosted half the time by David "I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted" Shuster, a creep so bigoted towards evangelical Christians that he recently said of them:
"We'll go to a revival and then go to Guantanamo Bay and torture some people just for fun."

MSNBC was in negotiations to hire Rosie O'donald for cryingoutload. No liberal media equivalent...please, and I haven't even mentioned Keef, who if you noticed, co-anchored MSNBC's election night coverage in Iowa. I thought Keef was an "opinion guy" not a "hardnews" guy?

But still, at the least, shouldn't Barack come on FOXNews Sunday and scold Chris Wallace like Bill Clinton did. Wouldn't that only help him in the eyes of Democrats and moderates?

[INDY500]

Originally posted by Infinitum98
Are we really arguing whether or not FOX is biased. We all know it is a biased, piece of shit network. And that Rupert Murdoch uses it to create more of a support for the Iraq War. Who can explain why Ron Paul was excluded from the debate yesterday? That is just ridiculous. Rupert Murdoch should go to Iraq, be shot, and die.

reminds me of this:
"I love so many critics of the press in Iraq, you know, can criticize the press, can criticize Lara Logan, and Richard Engel, and others who actually have their boots on the ground there. But I would like to see some of them like Bill Kristol go there, without a bodyguard, walk down the street. If he does so, I will make him this promise: I will attend his funeral."

--Neal Gabler on FoxNews Watch Oct 2007

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by INDY500


reminds me of this:
"I love so many critics of the press in Iraq, you know, can criticize the press, can criticize Lara Logan, and Richard Engel, and others who actually have their boots on the ground there. But I would like to see some of them like Bill Kristol go there, without a bodyguard, walk down the street. If he does so, I will make him this promise: I will attend his funeral."

--Neal Gabler on FoxNews Watch Oct 2007

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by INDY500

Or you can read Bernie Goldberg's books, or the myriad of polls that ask journalists to define themselves. I used to watch MSNBC for my political news but since the Iraq war they have made a noticeable and intentional move to be the "antiFox." During the 2004 Swiftboat "scandal" I saw Lawrence O'Donnell literally go insane on TV (I'm sure you can youtube it.) Chris Mathews called the White house "criminal" days before he moderated a Republican debate in 2007, now, that's not biased to you because you agree with that. Even Tucker Carlson's show is guest-hosted half the time by David "I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted" Shuster, a creep so bigoted towards evangelical Christians that he recently said of them:
"We'll go to a revival and then go to Guantanamo Bay and torture some people just for fun."

MSNBC was in negotiations to hire Rosie O'donald for cryingoutload. No liberal media equivalent...please, and I haven't even mentioned Keef, who if you noticed, co-anchored MSNBC's election night coverage in Iowa. I thought Keef was an "opinion guy" not a "hardnews" guy?

But still, at the least, shouldn't Barack come on FOXNews Sunday and scold Chris Wallace like Bill Clinton did. Wouldn't that only help him in the eyes of Democrats and moderates?

... And none of them are news segments.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by INDY500

Or you can read Bernie Goldberg's books, or the myriad of polls that ask journalists to define themselves. I used to watch MSNBC for my political news but since the Iraq war they have made a noticeable and intentional move to be the "antiFox." During the 2004 Swiftboat "scandal" I saw Lawrence O'Donnell literally go insane on TV (I'm sure you can youtube it.) Chris Mathews called the White house "criminal" days before he moderated a Republican debate in 2007, now, that's not biased to you because you agree with that. Even Tucker Carlson's show is guest-hosted half the time by David "I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted" Shuster, a creep so bigoted towards evangelical Christians that he recently said of them:
"We'll go to a revival and then go to Guantanamo Bay and torture some people just for fun."

MSNBC was in negotiations to hire Rosie O'donald for cryingoutload. No liberal media equivalent...please, and I haven't even mentioned Keef, who if you noticed, co-anchored MSNBC's election night coverage in Iowa. I thought Keef was an "opinion guy" not a "hardnews" guy?

yes, you're right, Bernie Goldberg isn't an egomanical jerk with an ax (or twelve) to grind, we should totally take what he says seriously.

if you want to compare Fox to MSNBC you are on far firmer ground than dragging the big three into it, so i'd suggest you pick one instead of trying to say that they're all the same.

how is having Keith cover the Iowa elections ANY different than MSNBC having Joe Scaroborough cover the 2006 elections?

and nothing, but NOTHING, you've pointed out on MSNBC is equivalent to the routine distortion and agenda pushing of the folks on Fox, who won't let Ron Paul debate and are shitting their collective pants over Hick-a-bee's rise.

[namkcuR]

Originally posted by Irvine511

are shitting their collective pants over Hick-a-bee's rise.

Stupid question, but shitting their collective pants in a bad way or shitting their collective pants in a good way? I guess I'm not understanding why FOX would have a problem with his rise. Are you implying that their agenda is not only blatently conservative/republican, but that their agenda is actually for specific people/candidates?

[anitram]

FOX supports the Republican establishment. They don't believe Huckabee is electable. They are looking to bury him and replace him with the re-animated corpse of McCain (seriously, he's looking and sounding more and more stale).

[namkcuR]

Originally posted by anitram
FOX supports the Republican establishment. They don't believe Huckabee is electable. They are looking to bury him and replace him with the re-animated corpse of McCain (seriously, he's looking and sounding more and more stale).

Gotcha.

They're only thinking of the general election.

As for McCain...I was pretty disgusted with him during the debate the other night when he wouldn't stop making digs at Romney and having a smug grin on his face afterwards. Not that I care for Romney, it's just that McCain's behavior was classless.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by namkcuR


Stupid question, but shitting their collective pants in a bad way or shitting their collective pants in a good way? I guess I'm not understanding why FOX would have a problem with his rise. Are you implying that their agenda is not only blatently conservative/republican, but that their agenda is actually for specific people/candidates?

that their agenda is for the republicans who will placate the abortion-is-murder masses while ensuring that their tax cuts are made permanent. it's the Reagan coalition that everyone's talked about, the marriage of Jerry Fallwell and Wall Street. this is something that Bush 2 had been able to pull off, though his markedly increased religiosity in comparison to his father and Reagan demonstrates the increasing demands of the evangelicals.

the distinction is between the "fuck off, i got mine" Republicans and the "abortion is murder" Republicans. Huck is part of the latter group, and his economic policies are big government in tone and scope, all very christianist nanny-state.

so, when you're a guy like Rush Limbaugh and you want to keep going to the DR to fuck underage chicks with recreational viagra in your bag that's not in your name, you're going to need your cash to do so. you don't really care about the Charlie Churches of the world, just so long as you toss them a bone or two about abortion being murder and Jesus is the way and that church-goers do such wonderful volunteer work and, heck, you don't use condoms anyway (abortions are cheap, and it's so much better without latex).

Huckabee put it best when he said that he reminds people of the guys they go to work with, and Romney reminds people of the guy who laid them off.

they've been treading a very delicate balance for so long, and they've pulled off the amazing high wire act of making Jesus seem like an economic conservative (calling Supply Side Jesus). but it's all collapsed under Bush, and the party's transformation into a religious movement is nearing completion with the ascent of Hucakbee.

you don't expect the Limbaughs of the world to actually live a "biblical" life, now do you?

[INDY500]

Originally posted by Irvine511




that their agenda is for the republicans who will placate the abortion-is-murder masses while ensuring that their tax cuts are made permanent. it's the Reagan coalition that everyone's talked about, the marriage of Jerry Fallwell and Wall Street. this is something that Bush 2 had been able to pull off, though his markedly increased religiosity in comparison to his father and Reagan demonstrates the increasing demands of the evangelicals.

the distinction is between the "fuck off, i got mine" Republicans and the "abortion is murder" Republicans. Huck is part of the latter group, and his economic policies are big government in tone and scope, all very christianist nanny-state.

so, when you're a guy like Rush Limbaugh and you want to keep going to the DR to fuck underage chicks with recreational viagra in your bag that's not in your name, you're going to need your cash to do so. you don't really care about the Charlie Churches of the world, just so long as you toss them a bone or two about abortion being murder and Jesus is the way and that church-goers do such wonderful volunteer work and, heck, you don't use condoms anyway (abortions are cheap, and it's so much better without latex).

Huckabee put it best when he said that he reminds people of the guys they go to work with, and Romney reminds people of the guy who laid them off.

they've been treading a very delicate balance for so long, and they've pulled off the amazing high wire act of making Jesus seem like an economic conservative (calling Supply Side Jesus). but it's all collapsed under Bush, and the party's transformation into a religious movement is nearing completion with the ascent of Hucakbee.

you don't expect the Limbaughs of the world to actually live a "biblical" life, now do you?

Are you getting enough sleep at night?

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by INDY500


Are you getting enough sleep at night?

I'm sorry, was his post not reasonable enough to warrant a response from you?

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by INDY500


Are you getting enough sleep at night?

no. i leave tomorrow for another shoot. is a stressful time.