Page 2 of 174 FirstFirst 1234561252102 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 2608
  1. #16
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,318

    Re: No MSM bias to see here... move along..

    ^^^ Ya.. pretty funny. Not a potter fan here.. I thought the movies sucked too.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  2. #17
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,318

    Re: No MSM bias to see here... move along..

    Shoulda heard the the stuff(stuff = anti war agenda pushing crap) I heard on NPR this AM. Story about an Iraq police outpost that was attacked 4 days after US forces left it. They led the piece by announcing "40 dead Iraqi police"... detailing how the station was overrun. Then had a phone interview with an unidentified, supposed Iraq police officer who said it was a massacre.

    After these breathtaking statements and having these "facts" already wrapped into the story as if true... they interviewed some US officers. And what did the US officers say? 9 police killed.. and dozens of terrorists killed as they repelled the attack.

    NPR was at a loss to explain the differences in the body count reported by their unnamed source.. and the US officers.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  3. #18
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,684

    Re: No MSM bias to see here... move along..

    I'M SHOCKED, SHOCKED: "In the final poll of a series measuring perceptions of media bias, the Associated Press, local television stations, MSNBC, and CNBC are all perceived as tilting to the left when reporting the news."
    posted at 08:32 AM by Glenn Reynolds

  4. #19
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,318

    Re: No MSM bias to see here... move along..

    More shock.... as if the topic of the "hour" itself leaves any question there will be an extreme absence of "balance". I wonder when the "Hillar Clinton is a lying biyatch" hour will air...



    PBS Ombudsman Notices Near-Total 'Absence of Balance' in Moyers Impeachment Hour


    PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler has to be getting uncomfortable for calling out unbalanced liberal programs on the taxpayer-funded network. After he agreed with critics last week that a pro-Kerry editorial was wildly out of place on the show "History Detectives," now he has noticed the incredibly one-sided Bill Moyers Journal hour on impeaching Bush and Cheney and mildly noted it could have used a smidgen of balance. Despite Nancy Pelosi’s promise to avoid impeachment hearings, he wrote, "I would argue that it is still a newsworthy topic. So, as a viewer, I'm grateful that it is being addressed....On the other hand, there was almost a complete absence of balance, as I watched it, in the way this program presented the case for impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Cheney."

    Getler praised Moyers and his guests for some educational television (and most of the letters he reproduces are rave reviews). He concluded: "This was an hour-long program and it was, in many ways, an education, listening to this view of the impeachment process being laid out, whether or not you agree with it. But the program, in my view, would have been not only less vulnerable to charges of political bias, but also even more educational to more people in terms of illuminating the public about impeachment, if it had contained at the very least a succinct summary of the likely legal challenges to each of the main charges raised by the pro-impeachment process guests."

    It would have been a lot easier to do that by having more of a debate. But Getler failed to address several issues, such as the outrageous historical comparisons guest Bruce Fein used, comparing Bush to the Nazis and the Soviets, and he failed to consider that PBS had no such "educational" hour when the House considered impeaching President Clinton, displaying a bias when comparing past to present.

    CPB Ombudsman Ken Bode did not comment on the Moyers impeachment show on his official blog, although he did strangely condemn the Moyers program that started his latest incarnation of the Journal show -- for not including any critique of PBS and its failure to prevent war in Iraq. However, Bode did write a sharp-elbowed piece in the Indianapolis Star about the Moyers show and impeachment. He listed "Bush administration crimes," and insisted Bush had a "monumental" amount of "monarchical arrogance." But he still thought the timing wasn't right for Pelosi to pounce:

    Charges: Guantanamo. Abu Ghraib. Rendition. Indefinite detention. Starting a war of aggression in Iraq without cause. Hiding and torturing captives without due process. Illegal wiretapping. Some would add obstructing honest elections and gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans after Katrina.

    The list of Bush administration crimes is very real, but I have not paid much attention to the blogs, petitions and other efforts to promote impeachment, on the theory that they are diversionary to the more important efforts to end the war in Iraq. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "Impeachment is not on the table," which I thought was good politics. Then a friend urged me to look at last Friday's PBS broadcast of "Bill Moyers Journal," a program devoted to putting the case for impeachment in a more serious context....

    Only through impeachment hearings is it possible to concentrate the mind of the public on the monarchical arrogance and sneering attitude of George W. Bush. "I am king," Fein says of Bush's view of executive powers....

    The crimes are real and probably impeachable, and the monarchial arrogance of the Bush-Cheney administration is monumental. But the timing is wrong.
    Once again, CPB only really wanted a partisan liberal ombudsman, or else they would have replaced conservative co-ombudsman William Schulz, which they never have. The PBS system is turning into Bush Hater Headquarters without even timid Republican majorities to discourage the natural leftist tendencies of public broadcasting.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  5. #20
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887

    Re: No MSM bias to see here... move along..

    Quote Originally Posted by jimzinsocal View Post
    I'M SHOCKED, SHOCKED: "In the final poll of a series measuring perceptions of media bias, the Associated Press, local television stations, MSNBC, and CNBC are all perceived as tilting to the left when reporting the news."
    posted at 08:32 AM by Glenn Reynolds
    Wts? "Local television stations"? How does that mean anything? And just because something is perceived one way, does that make it true?
    Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

  6. #21
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,684

    Re: No MSM bias to see here... move along..

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangutan View Post
    Wts? "Local television stations"? How does that mean anything? And just because something is perceived one way, does that make it true?
    Would if be more fair/meaningful to simply ask the media? God knows they perceive themselves as "journalists/fair and balanced"

  7. #22
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887

    Re: No MSM bias to see here... move along..

    Quote Originally Posted by jimzinsocal View Post
    Would if be more fair/meaningful to simply ask the media? God knows they perceive themselves as "journalists/fair and balanced"
    It's meaningless when it comes to figuring out if the "OMGSMGMSM" is biased in some way or another.
    Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

  8. #23
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,318

    Re: No MSM bias to see here... move along..

    SSDD...

    Two More Tales of Journalistic Dishonesty?

    Two More Tales of Journalistic Dishonesty?
    By Jack Kelly

    Jennifer Hunter is married to Chicago Sun-Times publisher John Cruickshank, which explains why Ms. Hunter writes a column for the Chicago Sun-Times. Here is why she should not.

    On July 16, Ms. Hunter wrote a column which began: "After watching the top five Democratic candidates for president speak before a trial lawyers' group Sunday, attorney Jim Ronca of Philadelphia, a staunch Republican, became certain of one thing: He is not going to vote for a Republican in the 2008 presidential election."

    A suspicious reader checked out Mr. Ronca's political contributions. Mr. Ronca had made 14 since 1994 -- 12 to Democrats. The Democratic candidates received $7,000; the GOP candidates $750.

    Mr. Ronca's contribution record was posted on several Web sites, whose readers flooded Ms. Hunter with demands for a correction.

    If Ms. Hunter had fessed up, I wouldn't be writing about her. But she responded by attacking Web loggers for doing the research she should have done, and blaming her error on her editor.

    "The grumbling arose partially because my editor took a small part of my story and made it into a headline: 'GOP lawyer sold on Dems,'" Ms. Hunter wrote in her July 19 column.

    But what her readers objected to was the description of Mr. Ronca as a "staunch Republican," which was Ms. Hunter's own, and which appeared in her lede. To blame the headline writer for the mistake is as dishonest as it is lame.

    The New Republic was shamed when two high profile writers (Ruth Shalit and Stephen Glass) were discovered to have made up stories. The venerable liberal magazine apparently has another scandal on its hands.

    In last week's issue the New Republic ran an article by "Scott Thomas," who -- the editors tell us -- is a pseudonym for a soldier currently serving in Iraq.

    "Thomas" describes three instances of shocking behavior by U.S. troops. In the first, his buddies humiliate a woman in the chow hall who was disfigured by an IED. In the second, a soldier excavating a mass grave puts a portion of a child's skull on his head and wears it like a helmet for an entire day. In the third, the driver of a Bradley fighting vehicle deliberately runs over a dog in the street.

    The New Republic's editors told a skeptical Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard the chow hall incident took place at FOB Falcon near Baghdad, and the mass grave was uncovered in farmland south of the Baghdad airport.

    But soldiers currently serving at FOB Falcon say they've never seen a woman there fitting Scott Thomas' description. (There are only a handful of women, and just one small mess hall on the base.) They also find incredible Thomas' claim he couldn't tell whether the woman was a soldier or a civilian. (Soldiers in Iraq wear their uniforms -- and carry their weapons -- at all times.) "There was no mass grave found during the construction of our Coalition outposts at any time," Major Kirk Luedeke, the public affairs officer at FOB Falcon, emailed milblogger Matt Sanchez.

    The story about the Bradley driver running over the dog couldn't possibly have happened, people familiar with the Bradley say.

    According to Thomas' story, the dog was on the right side of the vehicle, because the driver turned right to strike it. The driver's hatch is on the left side of the Bradley. Immediately to the driver's right is the cooling grill of the engine compartment, which rises above the driver's hatch, making it impossible for him to see anything on the right side of the vehicle.

    "Even if the driver was head out, he still couldn't see anything to his right below the level of the top deck (all armored vehicles have significant blind spots close in, which is why they need dismounts to protect them from RPG guys in foxholes)," Stuart Koehl emailed Mr. Goldfarb. "So if the driver 'twitched' the Bradley to the right, he must have used extrasensory perception in order to catch the dog, because there is no way he knew the dog was even there."

    That the New Republic would publish this drivel indicates how little its editors know about the military, and how eager they are to believe bad things about American soldiers.

    If the editors cannot tell us precisely when the incident with the woman with the burned face took place, or precisely where and when the mass grave was found, they should admit to being victims of fraud, or perpetrators of one.

    The Web makes it harder for journalists to lie and get away with it. This is a lesson Jennifer Hunter and the editors of the New Republic evidently haven't learned.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  9. #24
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,684

    Re: No MSM bias to see here... move along..


  10. #25
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,318

    Re: No MSM bias to see here... move along..

    Anyone who attended a class to be instructed how to not lie should have been handed their walking papers at the door..



    BBC staff are sent on courses to learn they shouldn't lie


    Is funding a training programme to tell your staff not to lie and cheat viewers a good use of license-fee payers' money? Perhaps you need to look at your recruitment process if you have to train them on such fundamentals as not lying or cheating?”
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  11. #26
    Joined
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Age
    38
    Posts
    6,499

    Re: No MSM bias to see here... move along..

    ^^^Oh great.....

    Unfortunately the days of real journalism have passed us long ago.....now everyone is a freakin editorialist

  12. #27
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,318

    Re: No MSM bias to see here... move along..

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackDragon24 View Post
    ^^^Oh great.....

    Unfortunately the days of real journalism have passed us long ago.....now everyone is a freakin editorialist
    The MSM takes care of it's own..... "culture of corruption" anyone??

    The Return of Michael FinkelThe work of the disgraced Times Magazine writer appears on the cover of National Geographic.

    Despite its self-image as a profession that excommunicates and banishes those who violate its ethical codes, journalism routinely grants its miscreants second chances. For example, a 1995 Columbia Journalism Review piece about plagiarism documented the low price Nina Totenberg, Michael Kramer, Edwin Chen, Fox Butterfield, and 16 other journalists paid after being accused of nicking the words of other writers.

    Author Trudy Lieberman found that nearly all of them were still in the business, and some of them had even kept their original jobs. As it turns out, not many publications force journalists to pay their debts to their profession and their readers. Often, they don't even send the bill.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  13. #28
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    E n g l a n d
    Posts
    10,979

    Re: No MSM bias to see here... move along..

    My god! That was sooooo spot on, I'm frankly amazed. Summed them up perfectly.


    What particularly irritates me about the BBC is that they think the sun shines out of their own backside. They have been trading on past glory for a hell of a long time now.

  14. #29
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,318

    Re: No MSM bias to see here... move along..

    Quote Originally Posted by Enmore View Post
    My god! That was sooooo spot on, I'm frankly amazed. Summed them up perfectly.


    What particularly irritates me about the BBC is that they think the sun shines out of their own backside. They have been trading on past glory for a hell of a long time now.
    Yup.. to hear it from an ex-insider really pushes the point home. The MSM like NY Times and Co. have the same institutional issues... except they are not gubberment funded. As you can see... one sided liberal reporting has a hard time making ends meet in a free market..



    If only we could pull the plug on NPR/PBS...
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  15. #30
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,318

    Re: No MSM bias to see here... move along..

    Put any liquids down first.... then read this.

    NY Times Worries About The WSJ’s Objectivity

    From a deeply concerned for the fate of journalism New York Times:

    Notes About Competition

    August 2, 2007

    If we were in any other business, a risky takeover of a powerful competitor might lead to celebration. Not in our business. Good journalism, which is an essential part of American democracy, thrives on competition.

    More than anything, competition makes our work better — more ambitious, more in-depth, more honest. When Americans are served by many different, responsible, competing news outlets, they can make more informed judgments. That is why we, and so many others, are paying such anxious attention to Rupert Murdoch’s purchase of Dow Jones & Company and its crown jewel, The Wall Street Journal.

    As newspapers have contracted, or simply disappeared, news organizations like The Times and The Journal have not celebrated. We have mourned sharp reductions in national and foreign coverage by virtually every American newspaper, including such formerly formidable competitors as The Los Angeles Times. The exodus of American news organizations from Iraq, for example, means more Times exclusives from the war zone, but Americans need and a healthy democracy demands as broad a view of the war as possible.

    For years, The Journal has been the model of a responsible and challenging competitor, not just in business news but also in its investigative reporting and its coverage of politics, international affairs and culture. Just this year, The Journal won two Pulitzer prizes: for its reporting on business executives unfairly enriching themselves with backdated stock options; and for articles on the high social and environmental costs of China’s unregulated rush into capitalism. Coverage like that drives us all to work harder and better.

    The Times and The Journal have reported extensively about Mr. Murdoch’s meddling in his media properties: How he reneged on his promise of editorial independence for the Times of London and how, to curry favor with China’s leaders, his satellite broadcaster, Star TV, stopped carrying news from the BBC. Now, Mr. Murdoch has bought one of the greatest newspapers in the world, with one of the most sophisticated readerships in the world. Those readers, and all of us who care about journalism, will be watching for any sign that news coverage is being slanted to curry political or economic favor.

    The best way for Mr. Murdoch to protect his $5 billion investment is to protect The Journal’s editorial quality and integrity. That will mean continued high-quality competition for The Times and other news organizations. And that will be good news for all Americans.
    Never mind that up until 2005 the news editor of the Wall Street Journal was that famously objective Al Hunt (husband of the equally objective Judy Woodruff).

    Unlike its editorial pages, the news reporting in the WSJ has slanted left for a very long time. The New York Times is only afraid that this will end.

    The best way for Mr. Murdoch to protect his $5 billion investment is to protect The Journal’s editorial quality and integrity.
    Testify!

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •