Fox "News" is Crap

#376
#376
VolDad said:
Where was that explanation 25 pages ago when LG said FOX is Crap and Biased?

Could have saved about 24 pages. :)
Click to expand...
because he knows full well that the coverage isn't about Obama being a rock star. It's because Obama is a blatant liberal and borderline socialist, which dovetails nicely with nearly 100% of the viewpoints in network newsrooms. Hillary had similar type lefty media fawning and she's nothing but a huge ankled, unattractive, faux politician. Her political slant made here a media darling.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#377
#377
BigPapaVol said:
because he knows full well that the coverage isn't about Obama being a rock star. It's because Obama is a blatant liberal and borderline socialist, which dovetails nicely with nearly 100% of the viewpoints in network newsrooms. Hillary had similar type lefty media fawning and she's nothing but a huge ankled, unattractive, faux politician. Her political slant made here a media darling.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

That would be cankles!:)
 
#378
#378
Is media playing fair in campaign coverage? - Yahoo! News

interesting article. I'm still trying to figure out which side is rep'd more in the MSM :question: Maybe all Fox is trying to do is level the playing field?

For each of the weeks between June 9 and July 13, Obama had a much more significant media presence. The Project for Excellence in Journalism evaluates more than 300 political stories each week in newspapers, magazines and television to measure whether each candidate is talked about in more than 25 percent of the stories.
Every week, Obama played an important role in more than two-thirds of the stories. For July 7-13, for example, Obama was a significant presence in 77 percent of the stories, while McCain was in 48 percent, the PEJ said.
Click to expand...
 
#379
#379
BigPapaVol said:
because he knows full well that the coverage isn't about Obama being a rock star. It's because Obama is a blatant liberal and borderline socialist, which dovetails nicely with nearly 100% of the viewpoints in network newsrooms. Hillary had similar type lefty media fawning and she's nothing but a huge ankled, unattractive, faux politician. Her political slant made here a media darling.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Why did W get more coverage and better treatment against Gore?

Bush Sr. against Dukakis?

Reagan against Mondale?

Obama vs. McCain coverage about politics only? Puh-lease. When Bobby Jindal runs for POTUS in 2012 and starts getting all sorts of fawning, I'd love to see you somehow paint him as a liberal and borderline Socialist.

And btw, Hillary Clinton is the wife of one of the most popular people in the world. She's not as much a rock star as Obama, but she has star power too if by nothing else than her rock star husband.
 
#380
#380
I think that Obama's trip is getting a good bit too much media attention and I agree that the media is treating him much better than McCain.

I don't particularly like Obama or McCain, really. Pluses for McCain would be his experience and I think he is intellectually honest. He loses points for his age, his lack of any charisma, and his sometimes unsettling anger management problems. Pluses for Obama would be that he is charismatic and with a same-party in Congress situation, perhaps more would get done. Minus issues: inexperience, naivete, and lack of foreign policy savy.
 
#381
#381
TennNC said:
Why did W get more coverage and better treatment against Gore? That's a completely ridiculous question and not because it's a hard answer. It's simply a guise for a lie.

Bush Sr. against Dukakis? More absurdity. Bush Sr. was painted as the most boring and unqualified guy ever.
Reagan against Mondale? There is no possible way that Reagan got better treatment than Mondale. It was probably one of the few where the field was relatively level, even though Reagan did have more appeal and more reason to be newsworthy.

Obama vs. McCain coverage about politics only? Puh-lease. When Bobby Jindal runs for POTUS in 2012 and starts getting all sorts of fawning, I'd love to see you somehow paint him as a liberal and borderline Socialist. I'm saying it's about politics. If Obama were the exact person he is, but with JC Watts politics, he wouldn't have anchors traveling with him. Jindal will never be fawned over by the network clowns. Isn't ever, ever going to happen, never. Did I mention Never, Ever?

And btw, Hillary Clinton is the wife of one of the most popular people in the world. She's not as much a rock star as Obama, but she has star power too if by nothing else than her rock star husband.
Click to expand...
See Bold above. As to the final question, Hillary didn't get this much press while her husband was still the rock star. I know you don't want to say it, but the Networks' love affair with the liberals is in full swing now with Obama and was going to be that way with Hillary. The press has created the rock star politician type that you're saying they're fawning over. The chicken actually came before the egg in this case.
 
#382
#382
BigPapaVol said:
See Bold above. As to the final question, Hillary didn't get this much press while her husband was still the rock star. I know you don't want to say it, but the Networks' love affair with the liberals is in full swing now with Obama and was going to be that way with Hillary. The press has created the rock star politician type that you're saying they're fawning over. The chicken actually came before the egg in this case.
Click to expand...


I actually don't think it would have been quite this over-the-top with Hillary. And while political bias has something to do with it, I think its got more to do with the newness of Obama and the perception that he's in this whirlwind of popularity.

The reality is that McCain is about as interesting as stale bread. Now, he might make a better president. But he just isn't one-tenth as exciting or energizing as Obama.

Not trying to justify the media over-coverage of Obama versus McCain. I sense it and think its real, too. Just trying to explain it and a good part of it has to do with the interest levels that the two can generate and the reality is that McCain is just plain yawn inducing.
 
#383
#383
lawgator1 said:
I actually don't think it would have been quite this over-the-top with Hillary. And while political bias has something to do with it, I think its got more to do with the newness of Obama and the perception that he's in this whirlwind of popularity.

The reality is that McCain is about as interesting as stale bread. Now, he might make a better president. But he just isn't one-tenth as exciting or energizing as Obama.

Not trying to justify the media over-coverage of Obama versus McCain. I sense it and think its real, too. Just trying to explain it and a good part of it has to do with the interest levels that the two can generate and the reality is that McCain is just plain yawn inducing.
Click to expand...

So you're saying all this media love is strictly about his shining personality and has nothing to do with his politics? OK.
 
#384
#384
volsforever27 said:
So you're saying all this media love is strictly about his shining personality and has nothing to do with his politics? OK.
Click to expand...

I think that's what he's saying, I agree him on it, and it points out just how sad our election process has become. Make no mistake, there will be thousands of people that could flunk Jaywalking that will be in the polls.
 
#385
#385
hndog609 said:
I think that's what he's saying, I agree him on it, and it points out just how sad our election process has become. Make no mistake, there will be thousands of people that could flunk Jaywalking that will be in the polls.
Click to expand...

I know they think he's a rock star, but as it's been pointed out before, if he had a R beside his name this wouldn't be happening.
 
#389
#389
BigPapaVol said:
See Bold above. As to the final question, Hillary didn't get this much press while her husband was still the rock star. I know you don't want to say it, but the Networks' love affair with the liberals is in full swing now with Obama and was going to be that way with Hillary. The press has created the rock star politician type that you're saying they're fawning over. The chicken actually came before the egg in this case.
Click to expand...

In your world of absolutes, I suppose I could understand your perspective on this. For surely no media outlet could've given W an easier route to the WH despite his many attempts to get in their good graces or his campaign's attempts to paint him as the good-ole cowboy outsider candidate from manly, independent Texas with a very well-known last name. I mean, if they have an R next to their name, the media will do everything to destroy them - just destroy them. If they have a D next to it, they'll anoint him the second coming of the messiah - regardless of any other factors. And don't give any credit to the charisma of any of these candidates. No - give that credit 100% to the media. Republicans, poor folks, they have to constantly overcome this despite how great their candidates really are.

Yes, in your world, the conspiracy is in full swing. Run with it.
 
#390
#390
TennNC said:
In your world of absolutes, I suppose I could understand your perspective on this. For surely no media outlet could've given W an easier route to the WH despite his many attempts to get in their good graces or his campaign's attempts to paint him as the good-ole cowboy outsider candidate from manly, independent Texas with a very well-known last name. I mean, if they have an R next to their name, the media will do everything to destroy them - just destroy them. If they have a D next to it, they'll anoint him the second coming of the messiah - regardless of any other factors. And don't give any credit to the charisma of any of these candidates. No - give that credit 100% to the media. Republicans, poor folks, they have to constantly overcome this despite how great their candidates really are.

Yes, in your world, the conspiracy is in full swing. Run with it.
Click to expand...

I love reading your posts... they get me through the day.
 
#391
#391
TennNC said:
In your world of absolutes, I suppose I could understand your perspective on this. For surely no media outlet could've given W an easier route to the WH despite his many attempts to get in their good graces or his campaign's attempts to paint him as the good-ole cowboy outsider candidate from manly, independent Texas with a very well-known last name. I mean, if they have an R next to their name, the media will do everything to destroy them - just destroy them. If they have a D next to it, they'll anoint him the second coming of the messiah - regardless of any other factors. And don't give any credit to the charisma of any of these candidates. No - give that credit 100% to the media. Republicans, poor folks, they have to constantly overcome this despite how great their candidates really are.

Yes, in your world, the conspiracy is in full swing. Run with it.
Click to expand...
You have your head deep in your 4th point of contact if you truly believe Obama is the charismatic messiah that the media is portraying. The guy has done nothing but spout change and speak. Obama had nowhere near the charisma that Clinton has and Obama has about 50% of the brainpower of Clinton, but Clinton got nowhere near this kind of media reception.

Further, if you don't think the networks do everything they legally can in supporting the hardest left candidate available, you just don't pay attention.

I'm not talking about a conspiracy. I'm talking about human nature. The indisputable fact is that the newsrooms of America vote 95%+ democratic. Human nature says that this crowd applies its worldview to its work. The folks that would hold them accountable for said bias are engaged in the same practice, so accountability doesn't exist.

I'm comfortable that you don't like black & white and believe that I don't have the capacity to understand the complexity of issues. That does nothing to change the bias that exists in our major media outlets. I'm not whining for Republicans because I believe they have natural advantages too, when they're not too busy trampling on them.
 
#395
#395
hndog609 said:
"It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,"

That's simply incredible.
Click to expand...

I imagine the "mirrors" comment refers to a point by point rebuttal but it still shows the bias that Obama gets free reign to structure his argument anyway he likes.

BTW - the Obama Op-ed is being syndicated - look for it (but not one from McCain) in a paper near you!
 
#397
#397
volinbham said:
At least the NYT's isn't taking sides...

DRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2008®
Click to expand...


I'd like to know more about this since the source of the article is Drudge and not him linking a more credible source.

But if in fact they rejected his proposed editorial response for any reason other than something like that it was too long or had some sort of technical deficit, then that is just wrong and indefensible. Having taken Obama's editorial, they are obliged to take McCain's without regard to content (within reason, of course -- i.e. he can't curse or whatever).

Based on what's reported here, this is a huge error by the NYT.
 
#398
#398
lawgator1 said:
I'd like to know more about this since the source of the article is Drudge and not him linking a more credible source.

But if in fact they rejected his proposed editorial response for any reason other than something like that it was too long or had some sort of technical deficit, then that is just wrong and indefensible. Having taken Obama's editorial, they are obliged to take McCain's without regard to content (within reason, of course -- i.e. he can't curse or whatever).

Based on what's reported here, this is a huge error by the NYT.
Click to expand...

Are you not familiar with the Times or their editors?
 
#399
#399
Why is it not OK for the TV media to have a liberal bias yet OK for radio media to have a huge conservative bias? I live in Nashville and 99.7FM is throwing everything including the kitchen sink at Obama. You would think Satan himself was running against McCain. I have heard that liberal radio doesn't sell but why does it sell so well with TV and papers?
 
#400
#400
615 Vol said:
Why is it not OK for the TV media to have a liberal bias yet OK for radio media to have a huge conservative bias? I live in Nashville and 99.7FM is throwing everything including the kitchen sink at Obama. You would think Satan himself was running against McCain. I have heard that liberal radio doesn't sell but why does it sell so well with TV and papers?
Click to expand...

It's not that it's not okay for either side, it is the refusal to admit the bias that is the bigger issue. I believe the NYT portrays itself to be a news organization not an opinion organization. Conservative talk radio is not claiming to be an unbiased source of info.

This is precisely why the Fairness Doctrine is a load of crap. This action by the NYT flies in the face of the Fairness Doctrine but I doubt the supporters of the FD would see it that way.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top