Say Anything Blog

It’s the begining of the media black-out on the opposition of obama.
/pun intended

Given this kind of disgraceful shilling for Obama and the Democrats, is it any wonder that subscriptions, overall circulation, and ad revenues are all down?

Wonder where the NYT stock price will be by the end of the week?

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

I guess the fairness doctrine only works for Liberals when it is squashing conservative speech.

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

This continues because the people stilll buy enough of those damn newspapers and enough advertisers buy space to justify their continued operation.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Why is it Republicans accept having right wing leaning news organizations or publications, but refuse to accept left leaning ones?

I mean, jeezus christ.  Wake up!  The media is going back to how it used to be.  It was biased before it was fair.

Is your side the only side that can publish articles, editorial pieces that are biased?  Show me favorable pieces by Charles Krauthammer.

Why is it Republicans accept having right wing leaning news organizations or publications, but refuse to accept left leaning ones?

Name them all and then what is left, 99.9% of all other news organizations are Leftist. That is not fair news, it is biased, partisan news controlled by the DNC!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

...has ignited explosive charges of media bias…

LOL (Literally)

The giggling fits are dying down… Sorry, another small outburst.  So this is latebreaking news?

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahaha

Why is it Republicans accept having right wing leaning news organizations or publications, but refuse to accept left leaning ones?

Because they left leaning ones pretend to be objective and detached when they are nothing of the sort.

The problem with your percentage figure that you came up with Nieman is it lacked any basis in fact.

Half of the ratings that look at partisanship over fairness look a single show for a period of half an hour to determine bias.  That is ridiculous.

Second, what seem like left wing bias to you may look light right wing bias to another.  Ever read MediaMatters?  To them, almost everything looks like right wing bias.  To Rush, everything looks like left wing bias. 

This is a never ending cycle.

If you are so worried about fairness, then support the fairness doctrine.  To do anything less is simply ridiculous.

Because they left leaning ones pretend to be objective and detached when they are nothing of the sort.

Which news organization has the motto “Fair and Balanced”?

Guess that sort of puts your argument in a different light, eh Ken?

If I’m not mistaken Fox allows left wingers on all the time.  Now I might be mistaken but when I watch Fox I find it far more fair and balanced than say ABC.

The New York Times not so much.  Goon beat me to it, but I’ll bet you that the Times is 100% for the fairness doctrine, for the other guys of course.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

If you are so worried about fairness, then support the fairness doctrine.  To do anything less is simply ridiculous.

Yeah, right, this is a democrat tool to shut down all conservative media and shows. LIke I am going to support that!

The proof of fair and balanced is when a media outlet or program gets attacked almost evenly, on a regular basis, from both the Right and Left, like I often get angry with Fox. Yet, Fox even attracts my very liberal family members because it is seen as being more fair and balanced than any other cable new network. Now tell me of a left leaning media outlet that can say the same thing.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

This is the latest Dem manipulation tactic to get Republicans, and specifically, McCain, to support the so-called “Fairness Doctrine”, which doesn’t apply to print media.  Be forewarned.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

If I’m not mistaken Fox allows left wingers on all the time.  Now I might be mistaken but when I watch Fox I find it far more fair and balanced than say ABC.

The figures that have been calculated show an outnumbered figure of liberals compared to conservatives.  Even the NYT has David Brooks.  David Brooks stands up for the NYT as being a fair and balanced news organization.

As i said, this argument is circular.  We will go round and around and prove nothing.

What looks like fairness to you, looks like bias to another.

Why is it Republicans accept having right wing leaning news organizations or publications, but refuse to accept left leaning ones?

What right wing leaning news organizations?  Name one, Fox doesn’t count.  What left leaning ones do you consider to be worthwhile?

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

Even if you counted Fox as a conservative, I wouldn’t but H is right it’s in the eye of the beholder, they still would be outnumbered by about 10-1 vs CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC and CNN.

It’s amazing the anguish the left feels because they give a slightly right of center presentation on their opinion shows.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

...but refuse to accept left leaning ones?

Because the lies, half-truths and outright fabrications of the leftie media are unacceptable.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

Even the NYT has David Brooks.  David Brooks stands up for the NYT as being a fair and balanced news organization.

H,

Specious nonsense!  In the first place, David Brooks is a columnist, who has absolutely no influence whatsoever on the editorial (that means news to you outsiders!) policies of the NYT.  Which is what is is being discussed here, by the way.

Second, Brooks is at best a Harry Truman/Scoop Jackson/Zell Miller style conservative Democrat.  The only thing that makes him look conservative is the multitude of dyed-in-the-wool, hard core, ultra-liberals that surrounds him… at the Times and in the rest of the mainstream media in general.

To suggest otherwise is to acknowledge just how little you actually know about conservative beliefs and how desperate you are to try and score debating points no matter what you have to say to do so.

Either that, or you’ve simply been out in the sun too long.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

What right wing leaning news organizations?  Name one, Fox doesn’t count.

A perfect example of why trying to reason with you is a waste of time.

Every time the mainstream media’s leftwing bias and total lack of objectivity is being discussed, smoe “progressive” shill starts yammering about Fox News.  But leaving aside the fact that most libs are merely repeating Democrat talking points and actually know next to nothing about Fox, the fact is this post was about the NYT… that is, the print media.

So, H, since you’re the self-annointed defender of leftist hogwash, please name for us a major city daily newspaper that is not left-leaning.

Fact is, almost every major city daily that I can think of is decidedly liberal in its editorial bias, from the NYT to WaPo, the LAT, AJC, both Boston papers, the Miami Herald, both Chicago papers, the Seattle PI, the SF Chronicle, the Philadelphia Enquirer, and on and on and on.

I’ve listed 12 papers there, and while you might try to quibble (pointlessly!) the fact remains that you cannot name even half that number of big city dailies that are decidedly conservative leaning.

Go ahead.  Try!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Specious nonsense!  In the first place, David Brooks is a columnist, who has absolutely no influence whatsoever on the editorial (that means news to you outsiders!) policies of the NYT.  Which is what is is being discussed here, by the way.

Is David Brooks a conservative?  Yes.  Is my point that Brooks thinks the NYT is unbiased?  Yes.  Has the discussion moved to what is fair and balanced?  Yes.

Get off it Bat, you look like a grumpy old man yelling at kids on the lawn.

Second, Brooks is at best a Harry Truman/Scoop Jackson/Zell Miller style conservative Democrat. 

Not according to him.

Brooks, now a conservative, describes himself as being originally a liberal.

Sorry, take it up with him.

To suggest otherwise is to acknowledge just how little you actually know about conservative beliefs…

How am I supposed to argue with that?  He votes republican and he considers himself a Conservative.....the spectrum of diversity in both parties varies greatly per certain individuals.  I have no interest in debating with someone who can’t acknowledge that.

As I said Bat....it’s all a matter of how you look at data and warp it with your point of view.

http://mediamatters.org/reports/oped/

This project did something that has never been done before: It amassed data on the syndicated columnists published by nearly every daily newspaper in the country. While a few publications, most notably Editor & Publisher, cover the syndicated newspaper industry, no one has attempted to comprehensively assemble this information prior to now. Because the syndicates refuse to reveal to the public exactly where their columnists are published, when Media Matters for America set out to make a systematic assessment of the syndicated columnist landscape, we had no choice but to contact each paper individually and ask which syndicated columnists are published on their op-ed pages.

The results show that in paper after paper, state after state, and region after region, conservative syndicated columnists get more space than their progressive counterparts. As Editor & Publisher paraphrased one syndicate executive noting, “U.S. dailies run more conservative than liberal columns, but some are willing to consider liberal voices."1

Though papers may be “willing to consider” progressive syndicated columnists, this unprecedented study reveals the true extent of the dominance of conservatives:

*Sixty percent of the nation’s daily newspapers print more conservative syndicated columnists every week than progressive syndicated columnists. Only 20 percent run more progressives than conservatives, while the remaining 20 percent are evenly balanced.

In a given week, nationally syndicated progressive columnists are published in newspapers with a combined total circulation of 125 million. Conservative columnists, on the other hand, are published in newspapers with a combined total circulation of more than 152 million.2

The top 10 columnists as ranked by the number of papers in which they are carried include five conservatives, two centrists, and only three progressives.
The top 10 columnists as ranked by the total circulation of the papers in which they are published also include five conservatives, two centrists, and only three progressives.

In 38 states, the conservative voice is greater than the progressive voice—in other words, conservative columns reach more readers in total than progressive columns. In only 12 states is the progressive voice greater than the conservative voice.

In three out of the four broad regions of the country—the West, the South, and the Midwest—conservative syndicated columnists reach more readers than progressive syndicated columnists. Only in the Northeast do progressives reach more readers, and only by a margin of 2 percent.

In eight of the nine divisions into which the U.S. Census Bureau divides the country, conservative syndicated columnists reach more readers than progressive syndicated columnists in any given week. Only in the Middle Atlantic division do progressive columnists reach more readers each week./quote]

The idea that the liberal’s controlled the media was true 30 years ago. Now, I could go into a number of studies that have looked into media bias and have resulted in showing that their more conservative views and voices on the whole spectrum of media. Instead, I’ll provide some conservatives that know that they control most of the media, yet understand that it’s smart to scream, ‘Liberals control the media!’

Rich Bond, former chair of the Republican Party: “There is some strategy to it [bashing the ‘liberal’ media]...If you watch any great coach, when they try to do is ‘work the refs.’ Maybe the ref will cut a little slack on the next one.”

Pat Buchanan: “I’ve gotten balanced coverage, and broad coverage--all we could have asked. For heaven sakes, we kid about the ‘liberal media’, but every Republican on earth does that.”

William Kristol: “I’ll admit it. The liberal media were never that powerful, the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.”

Ann Coulter: “We have the media now.”

Bill O’Reilly: “Don’t believe the right-wing ideologues when they tell you the left still controls the media agenda. It does not any longer. It’s a fact.”

Bruce Bartlett: “..the idea the media now tilt toward liberals is absurd.”

Matt Labash: “We’ve created this cottage industry in which it pays to be unobjective. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It’s a great way to have your cake and eat it, too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It’s a great little racket. I’m glad we found it.”

H,

A clumsy dodge artfully attempted.  At best!  Again for the (rhetorically speaking) hearing impaired…

What influence does Brooks, or for that matter Bill Kristol, have on the editorial policy of the NYT?  Does having either of these gentlemen writing regular Op-Eds in any way effect how the news is selected and presented on the pages of the paper?  Do George Will’s regular columns in the Washington Post effect how that newspaper reports the news?

The answer, of course, is not at all!

Now… how’s that list of conservative major city newspapers coming?  Or, better, yet, what lame-assed excuse are you going to use to rationalize the fact that there aren’t any?

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

And here’s the money quote Bat.

So, ignore it, dismiss it, spin it.  Do what you do best.

*Sixty percent of the nation’s daily newspapers print more conservative syndicated columnists every week than progressive syndicated columnists. Only 20 percent run more progressives than conservatives, while the remaining 20 percent are evenly balanced.

H,

Don’t you dare insult my intelligence by quoting Media Matters, a Soros-funded, “progressive” advocacy group, to me and then expect me to take you seriously.  And on a thread about leftwing bias in the mainstream media, too?

I gave you credit for more sense than that, H.  My bad!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Does having either of these gentlemen writing regular Op-Eds in any way effect how the news is selected and presented on the pages of the paper?

By this standard it doesn’t matter how many liberals are on Fox News, because the owner and those who type the memos on what the “journalist” and reporters discuss is directed by their bosses.

And again, the purpose of using Brooks was an example of a conservative who works for the NYT stating that they are not biased.  My point was very clear, you are changing the conditions of the debate to frame it in a way that you think advantages you.

It’s sort of lame and beneath you.

A perfect example of why trying to reason with you is a waste of time.--

Actually, H, it’s a perfect example of your bullshit.  According to the “survey” from MediaMatters, cited by you, there should be plenty of “right-wing” news organizations to mention, so the loss of just one, Fox News, shouldn’t be a problem for you.  Yet it is a problem for you...why is that?

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

Hannitized: Media Matters is a progressive organization and they do very balanced studies on the media. Conservative extremists are simply going to attack the source of the study because for one, they aren’t able to retort the study. Second, they don’t want to believe that conservatives actually control most of the media because it’s a great thing to scream about.

They also can’t understand how they can control most of the media and find out that most of this country doesn’t agree with most of their core issues these days. Their in a real bind and rather than step up and save their party, they put their head in the sand and simply spew slander with no substance.

”It often takes more courage to change one’s opinion than to stick to it.“ ~Geoffrey F. Albert

H,

In other words, you can’t name a single major city daily newspaper that isn’t liberal-leaning and the only thing you have to back you up is Media Matters, a George Soros-funded mouthpiece, whose star hack is/was Oliver Willis? 

Hell, I’m surprised you’ve managed to convince even yourself.

On second thought…

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Conservative extremists…

Conservatives aren’t “extremists”; look it up.  Educate yourself.  American conservatives believe in the founding principles of this country, as expressed in the Constitution, and so are the opposite of “extremists”, unless, of course, you are a Marxist who considers individual independence “extreme”.  Is that what you believe?

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

Some conservatives accepted Media Matters findings, why don’t you?

I’ve been really anxious to see how traditional media outlets respond to the new Media Matters report, which documents the way nation’s op-ed pages skew heavily to the right. Something is clearly amiss, and I’ve been curious to see how news outlets respond.

The Chicago Tribune’s Frank James offers a response, suggesting this may have “nothing to do with a nefarious conservative cabal,” (note the condescending conspiratorial language) and points to a generational problem.

Demographically, newspaper readers tend to be older than non-newspaper readers. An older audience is likely to be more conservative. Newspapers are generally in business to be profitable. That means, more often than not, providing consumers with products that reflect their tastes. Thus, more conservative syndicated columnists than not.

While all of us in the newspaper industry will readily agree with MM that newspapers remain important sources of news and information, the growth of the Internet, particularly of blogs, especially of the political variety, suggests that the nation isn’t exactly starved for a diversity of political viewpoints. Never have so many been able to say so much to so many others.

So even though newspapers collectively may carry more syndicated conservative than progressive columnists, maybe it doesn’t really matter as much as Media Matters would have us believe.

I appreciate that James took the time to acknowledge the Media Matters study — I suspect most journalists will prefer to ignore it — but his analysis seems flawed.

Oh, you can’t accept facts because of the source...got it.  So in your world I can’t trust anything FOX News says because it is owned by Murdoch?

Here’s the link…

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/09/media_watchdog_finds.html

H’s Quotes (they surprised me so I researched them):

Kristol was quoted from 1995, Buchanan from 1996, O’Reilly was misquoted (go look up the whole of what he said). I bet the others are flawed too.

Perhaps the Right cried wolf too many times. I was too young to care in the 90s, but since 2001, I certainly notice a left-wing bias in the media.

Do you really need any other evidence than the fact that every major news reporter is falling over himself to join Obama on his eurotrip? Or my personal experience where, visiting Israel this summer, Israelis asked me whether I was voting for Obama or Hillary (apparently no one told them that McCain was running too). Pfft.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Do you really need any other evidence than the fact that every major news reporter is falling over himself to join Obama on his eurotrip?

Obama has something the others don’t, as did Kennedy.  Not to mention he is the first Black presidential candidate to, and a real chance at winning the White House....he is making history one way or the other. 

The fact that you guys don’t get it is hurting your perceptions.  I can’t help you any more than that.

H,

Obama has something the others don’t, as did Kennedy.  Not to mention he is the first Black presidential candidate to, and a real chance at winning the White House....he is making history one way or the other. 

Did you just seriously argue that the media’s fawning coverage of Obama is no biased because they rightfully concluded that he has a better chance of winning than McCain?

Nope, that’s not biased at all… you asshat.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

OMG.
A private entity making its own decisions. Bothers the fuck outta you guys, eh?

Hey, if it ain’t paying, fuck it. I bet someone else will run it, pursue that.

Nice whining though.

From the complaints, it sounds like one of McCain’s little ghostwriters put together a list of umpteen times over regurgitated, bullshit talking points, refused to characterize his position, and so forth. isn’t that what you guys have been accusing obama of? bwahahaha!

such victims. poor babies. maybe you can get the fed to pursue some social justice for you. bwhahahaha.

Who knew that it was the place of New York Times editors to tell Presidential candidates what to put in their opinion pieces?

Its not. And Rob knows that. Its McCain’s choice. I didn’t know that the nytimes had to publish every surd mailed in to it?

bwahahaha! poor babies. sniffle. get me a hanky. DRUDGE! bwahahaha! free enterprise is a bitch eh?

now we just need foxnews and worldnetdaily and drudge to whine about how biased it is.

the would be the icing on the fucknut hypocrisy cake! oh, wait… they are whining. bwahahaha!

fucking babies.

maybe WSJ will run it next to Karl ‘John-McCain-has-an-illegitimate-black-baby’ Rove’s column.

Let me guess, Rush is whining about it too.  You guys know that this shit is too funny. How can you even take yourselves seriously about this?

Seriously. Joke of the day! It must be all those Jewish liberal Israeli haters in NYC perpetrating this eh? Bwahahaha!

Can we get someone to force them to print it? Who can we call? Will Bush do it? Maybe we can get the NY legislature to intervene, pace Shaivo. Bwahaha!

Sparkie, most of what you write is so dumb as to not even be worth responding to, but even so:

OMG.
A private entity making its own decisions. Bothers the fuck outta you guys, eh?

I never said that the New York Times has to run McCain’s piece.  I just think it’s worth of criticism that a media outlet that claims to be objective is giving an edge to one candidate over the other.

Not that you’re capable of grasping logic.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

From way up the thread.

Hannitized:

Why is it Republicans accept having right wing leaning news organizations or publications, but refuse to accept left leaning ones?

I don’t have a problem with left-leaning publications as long as they admit that they’re left-leaning.

The Times claims to be objective.  They’re lying.

That’s the problem.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Media Matters is a progressive organization and they do very balanced studies on the media.

That’s like saying (insert dictator’s name here) held very balanced democratic elections.

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

The Times claims to be objective.  They’re lying.

That’s the problem.

So does FoxNews. Also, note Rob that we are talking about Op-Eds. Nobody claims their Op-Eds are objective. Nobody. That’s what Op-Eds are for. DUH.

That’s like saying (insert dictator’s name here) held very balanced democratic elections.

Are you making fun of Reagan? SO mean of you proof.

Also, NYTimes generally has good opeds representing many views. one thing to notice is that many of them reveal new facts, opinions, or otherwise unsaid content. perhaps they have nonpartisan filters for their oped requirements that you are merely politicizing for expediency.

what you should do is just what i do. don’t believe anybody. they are all full of it, but don’t take my word for it.

Sparkie: Get back on the thorazine, you are engaging in nonsensical ravings again, betraying your lunatic mind is operation and at full speed.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Speaking in terms of his genetic heritage, Obama is really an Arab-American, not an African-American, but that wouldn’t fit into the Dem propaganda model, would it?

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

Neiman
Do you have one of those straightjackets I can borrow?

When all else fails, mount a personal attack.

Like I was explaining to Proof-the-Doof and BattyOne just a day or two ago, I hear the ‘Sparkie has an illegitimate black baby’ one works well among the demographic you are attempting to appeal to.

Speaking in terms of his genetic heritage

Don’t betray a bias there, r108. Polish American. Italian American. Spanish American. Would those denote members of the Polish, Italian, and Spanish races? I think not. I believe that Africa, like Poland, Italy, and Spain is a geographic reference. Some of my ancestors, for example, were Polish-Americans. Genetically, as you disguise your racial vitriol, they’d be of slavic or eurasian descent. The ‘n*ggers of the white people’ as Ashcroft refers to us.

A perfect example of why trying to reason with you is a waste of time.

Reason????  Bwahaha!!!!  You wouldn’t know reason if it bit you.

I knew you couldn’t name a right wing news organization.  All you do is blow smoke out of your ass..

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

By this standard it doesn’t matter how many liberals are on Fox News, because the owner and those who type the memos on what the “journalist” and reporters discuss is directed by their bosses.

Except for the Fact that Rupert Murdoch has been an active fundraiser for the DNC and has tried to get Hillary Clinton and John Kerry elected. He’s really pushing the Cool Change initiative (no other station comes close) and is a self described populist. Hardly a right winger. He simply saw a place for conservative op ed shows and more balanced news and filled it.

I’ve watched Outfoxed, been to the newshounds websites, and seen all the crap critiques of Fox News. Without exception they focus on three shows: O’Reilly, Hannity and Colmes, and Brit Hume, all op ed shows. None of the media matters types try to actually analyze the NEWS parts...you know...the ones that matter.

When we look at the “socialist paradise” that is Cuba, we must remember that a sizable share of the misery those people suffer is directly attributable to Che Guevara bringing Castro into power, and giving him many of the policies that have caused so much pain. The real symbol of Che should be the raft, to remind us of all those who have died on rafts in the ocean trying to escape the Cuban nightmare and get to freedom. And had he not been killed, begging for his life like a coward, he would’ve done the same thing again and again in countries all throughout Latin and South America. His actions have inspired terrorists across a continent and caused countless deaths.

Did you just seriously argue that the media’s fawning coverage of Obama is no biased because they rightfully concluded that he has a better chance of winning than McCain?

No, that is not what I said at all. 

I said that because Obama has made history, by being the first black nominee of any party.  That reason alone, makes reporters more eager to follow him around the country and/or world.

Another reason is because he has a certain charisma that we haven’t seen in a long time.  You guys don’t see it, because you are filled with jealousy, hatred and blind partisanship, but others do.  This draw Obama has been endowed with creates more media interest than McCain is able to obtain.

This is pretty straight forward stuff guys.

I said that because Obama has made history, by being the first black nominee of any party.  That reason alone, makes reporters more eager to follow him around the country and/or world.

“Dostoyevsky implied that it was precisely when the devil became a wit that the intellectual classes of the West succumbed to the most familiar form of diabolic temptation: the belief that men can transcend the limits of their condition and “be as gods”—demiurges with the power to heal the world’s pain and reshape it in accordance with a beautiful idea.”

Read the whole thing if you like think-pieces… (details humanity’s ignorant need for prophets and Obama’s capitalization on it)

Otherwise, having a good reason for fawning all over a candidate at the exclusion of the other does not make for unbiased journalism. So I’m not sure how your explanation contributes to your point.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

H,

So, the reason to support the candidacy of a rookie Senator with no experience at anything is because of his platitudes, his personality, and the fact that he’s black?

Is that what you and the young Mr. Obama would have us believe?

BTW, do you believe in the toenail fairy?

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Neiman
Do you have one of those straightjackets I can borrow?

When all else fails, mount a personal attack.

Yes, happy to send it to you, but I suspect your psychiatrist, the one prescribing your thorazine has a few laying around to help keep you from a computer keyboard until you return to some semblance of sanity.

Seiously, I tried to joke with you because you have commented so much under this one thread, your comments are all over the place with no coherent theme in them and so I thought I might slow you down a bit and help you focus. I was wrong!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

I said that because Obama has made history, by being the first black nominee of any party.  That reason alone, makes reporters more eager to follow him around the country and/or world.

“Dostoyevsky implied that it was precisely when the devil became a wit that the intellectual classes of the West succumbed to the most familiar form of diabolic temptation: the belief that men can transcend the limits of their condition and “be as gods”—demiurges with the power to heal the world’s pain and reshape it in accordance with a beautiful idea.”

Read the whole thing if you like think-pieces… (details humanity’s ignorant need for prophets and Obama’s capitalization on it)

Otherwise, having a good reason for fawning all over a candidate at the exclusion of the other does not make for unbiased journalism. So I’m not sure how your explanation contributes to your point.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

As usual, Sparkie, you post pure nonsense.  Obama is an Arab-American, and you can’t handle that fact.  I never mentioned “race”, btw; you just made that up out of your own racist mind.  Typical leftie.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

You wouldn’t know reason if it bit you.

First of all, reason can’t “bite” you.  You wouldn’t know reason if it hit you upside the head like a frozen salami stick.

I knew you couldn’t name a right wing news organization.  All you do is blow smoke out of your ass..

You mean except for Fox News, the cable show you said “didn’t count”???  You idiot.

Further, most shows aren’t complete in their bias.  Cable shows now have both sides representing views.  You have your Glen Beck’s on CNN and you have your Olberman’s. 

None of this will make sense to you, because you are a hack.  But...who expected anything more from you?

I said that because Obama has made history, by being the first black nominee of any party. That reason alone, makes reporters more eager to follow him around the country and/or world.

So, biased reporting is OK, if it’s done for the “right” reasons?  Not surprising, as lefties think racism, homophobia and sexism are OK if they’re practiced by their favored groups.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

Otherwise, having a good reason for fawning all over a candidate at the exclusion of the other does not make for unbiased journalism. So I’m not sure how your explanation contributes to your point.

Very good Hairy.  Now with all of the intelligence you have demonstrated.  Perhaps you could also be as much of a critical thinker when it comes to the difference between LIBERAL bias....and bias in general.

The discussion at hand is about liberal bias.  Because Obama has a draw of historic nature and thus, creates a buzz around him may indeed cause a bias, just not a LIBERAL one.

I never mentioned “race”, btw

No, you said

Speaking in terms of his genetic heritage

And you said he’s Arab. Have you viewed his DNA? Bigot?

i haven’t read the obama editorial but i did read mccain’s editorial (it’s posted on drudge).

i noticed mccain’s editorial is just a major slam of obama. obama is mentioned in almost every single paragraph.

reading the reason mccain’s editorial was denied leads me to believe that obama stated his ideas and policies, whereas mccain’s editorial just slammed obama.  if this is the reality, maybe if mccain writes an editorial of his ideas and policies, it would be printed. just a guess.

as far as media matters goes:

i read it occassionally and find they back everything up with video (sometimes text). hard to deny something when you watch the video.

they may be progressive but i haven’t run across a ‘lie’. sometimes they are a bit nit-picky. biggest failing is they, as they admit, target the conservative movement. plenty to target in the progressive movement.

so what if soros gave money to them. what is the crime in that? that was 5-6 years ago? did he get total editorial control forever?

So, biased reporting is OK, if it’s done for the “right” reasons?  Not surprising, as lefties think racism, homophobia and sexism are OK if they’re practiced by their favored groups.

Jeezus.  You guys are damn near comical.

I never said it was the RIGHT reason.  It is just a fact.  I know you ignore facts or spin them at every opportunity, but your instinct to continuously deny realities and facts is preventing you from having a discussion on things that aren’t related to partisan politics. 

Jeesus christ you are a off your rocker.

Eunichized, as usual, is full of it:

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
By Meg Sullivan | 12/14/2005 5:36:31 PM
UCLA Newsroom

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper’s news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

“I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican,” said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study’s lead author. “But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are.”

“Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left,” said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

...

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS’ “Evening News,” The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Even worse for the purportedly unbiased news outlets, the public has indeed caught on:

Belief Growing That Reporters are Trying to Help Obama Win
Rassmussen Reports
Monday, July 21, 2008

The belief that reporters are trying to help Barack Obama win the fall campaign has grown by five percentage points over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help Obama with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago.

Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help John McCain win, little changed from 13% a month ago. Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.

All y’all on the left have a large and growing credibility deficit.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

The discussion at hand is about liberal bias.  Because Obama has a draw of historic nature and thus, creates a buzz around him may indeed cause a bias, just not a LIBERAL one.

1. Obama is the liberal Democrats’ candidate, so ANY bias toward him is a “liberal bias.”

2. The “historic nature” of Obama’s candidacy is only a draw for liberals, conservatives don’t much care. So, again, a bias generated by a liberal draw is… a “liberal bias.”

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

I have a question.

Why is it a political bias?

Not racial? Not a war-making bias? Not a geographic bias?

ALSO ITS A GODDAMN OP-ED. AS I POINTED OUT, AND APPARENTLY ALL YOU MISSED

Also, note Rob that we are talking about Op-Eds. Nobody claims their Op-Eds are objective. Nobody. That’s what Op-Eds are for. DUH.

None of this will make sense to you, because you are a hack.  But...who expected anything more from you?

I can envision the foam and spittle coming out of your mouth as you wrote this.  Not a pretty picture..  Perhaps you need a rabies shot or some other medical attentiono.

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

A promise?  Credibility?  Same thing happened a few years ago after the conventions in 2004.  A comedian, Frankin I believe was given space in USA Today and Ann Coulter was promised same.  After she submitted, her piece was rejected.  Double standards.  I have not bought a USA Today since.  Bias in the media.

Communism is evil

Beardsley confuses beliefs with facts.

The belief that reporters are trying to help Barack Obama win the fall campaign has grown by five percentage points over the past month.

Beliefs do not constitute a reality Beardsley.  Only a clueless person could conclude that it translates into facts.

H.  Glad to see you write that.  Now we can reject about 95% of the “surveys” generated by the MSM based on beliefs and opinions.

Communism is evil

1. Obama is the liberal Democrats’ candidate, so ANY bias toward him is a “liberal bias.”

Hairy,

That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.  This is why this site can never be taken seriously as a place for real debate.  It is fruitless to try and have a discussion with someone who is so obtuse and objectionable to reality.

First, your logic is totally flawed.  He is also a black man, so then is it a black bias?  He is taller than McCain, does that make it a tall bias? 

Second, the bias that is being shown is related to the CAUSE of the bias.  The CAUSE of the bias is due to him being the first Black nominee for president.  Not because he is a liberal.

2. The “historic nature” of Obama’s candidacy is only a draw for liberals, conservatives don’t much care. So, again, a bias generated by a liberal draw is… a “liberal bias.”

Bullshit!

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68779

Why black Republicans support Obama

I’m hearing many black Republicans echoing similar sentiments. They say that because of the historical significance of casting a vote for the first legitimate black presidential candidate, they may cross party lines.

You are grasping at straws Hairy and you are looking desperate in the process.

Why can’t you just walk away?

As if the Democrat/Liberals haven’t gotten more favorable coverage.

This time it’s because he’s black and has a chance to win the Presidency.

At least Hannitized should admit that IF the press has given this favorability in the past then it would constitute bias.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.