More proof that Fox News is a government sponsored propaganda machine...

[Decker]

No, here is where your wrong, and here is why Democrats will loose in 2008. YOU are the people with your head up your ass. You and Ben Affleck, Leonardo DiCaprio, and the rest of the holier-than-thou elite think you can just declare that conservative=unintelligent. The fact of the matter is that for every dipshit religious neo-con voting conservative because he thinks God told him to, there is a crackhead prostitute birthing 7 babies a decade, all addicted to herion, all living off the government for their entire lives voting democrat to secure their welfare check. Their is nothing inherently unintelligent about either idealogy when you get down to the bare bones. Each side has unintelligent people. You keep painting yourself as the intellectual, why don't you copy and paste that list of government responsibilities for me again! You are real deep thinker, alright. A deep thinker who is incapable of distinguishing the concept of how much government is good, from whether we need government at all. Keep telling yourself that your idealogy is intelligent and mine isn't, and you can keep bitching all the way until 2012.

This excerpt is a little bit hyperbolic...just a little. I merely pointed out what is common knowledge: That the view of the "shortsighted, profit motivated to the exlusion of all else crowd" is really just a suicidal perspective...it goes nowhere but to hell.

I believe I did say that being short-sighted and selfish in reference to any thinking person inexorably leads to the conclusion that conservatism is a fast-track to nowhere. Profit now and damn the future or effects. You said, "unintelligent", I didn't. There are plenty of clever and intelligent conservatives. But truly thoughtful people are not morally bankrupt the way modern conservatives are.

Contrary to your accusation, I've never painted myself as an intellectual. So what's wrong with being an intellectual? I know how antithetical thinking and intelligence is to the republican party. That's why you guys nominated an incurious dolt for president. The worst part of it is, guys like you voted for this small foolish man.

My ideology? Ideology in what sense of the word? Marx???

Hey, why so defensive?

 

[kbm8795]

You lost me right there. You have got to be kidding. That is simply NOT a reasonable position. Most media people are liberals. Period.

Admit that, then we can discuss the rest of your post.

This, of course, is based on. . . . .
Interestingly, I know of only one institute specifically created to "train" professionals in the media which is entirely based on a political viewpoint - and it is a "conservative"-funded group which takes quite a bit of pride in placing their "graduates" in mass media networks. Of course, there are no professional tenets for such behavior, but "conservatives" are apparently entitled to a free pass from ethical considerations.

 

[Pepper]

If the liberal media are so monolithic why all the conservative talking heads, radio shows, columnists etc? Limbaugh, Will, O'reilly, McGlaughlin, Barnes, Kristol, Kondracke, Scarborough, Hannity, coulter, Hitchens, Snow(now he's part of the political problem), and on and on.

We are talking about news media, aren't we?

Reporters and editors, not talk show hosts.

Liberal talk radio is a circus, see Air America.

 

[kbm8795]

No, Pepper. I think he is correct. In fact, college professors are not overwhelmingly liberal either.

Um...isn't that another claim that comes from a "conservative" source?

 

[Decker]

Oh, I almost forgot, For you Clemson357:

Printing the very dollar bills with which people trade.
Public roads.
Rural electrification.
Government subsidized telephone wiring.
Satellite communications.
Police protection.
Military protection.
A criminal justice system.
Fire protection.
Paramedic protection.
An educated workforce.
An immunized workforce.
Protection against plagues by the Centers for Disease Control.
Public-funded business loans, foreclosure loans and subsidies.
Protection from business fraud and unfair business practices.
The protection of intellectual property through patents and copyrights.
Student loans.
Government funded research and development.
National Academy of Sciences.
Economic data collected and analyzed by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Prevention of depressions by Keynesian policies at the Fed (successful for six decades now).
Dollars protected from inflation by the Fed.
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Public libraries.
Cooperative Extension Service (vital for agriculture)
National Biological Service.
National Weather Service
Public job training.

 

[Decker]

We are talking about news media, aren't we?

Reporters and editors, not talk show hosts.

Liberal talk radio is a circus, see Air America.

Many of the people on that list write editorials for papers across the country.

Who do you think chooses which editorialist will appear in print?

 

[Pepper]

This, of course, is based on. . . . .
Interestingly, I know of only one institute specifically created to "train" professionals in the media which is entirely based on a political viewpoint - and it is a "conservative"-funded group which takes quite a bit of pride in placing their "graduates" in mass media networks. Of course, there are no professional tenets for such behavior, but "conservatives" are apparently entitled to a free pass from ethical considerations.

It is based on the fact that most of these people lean to the left. By their own admission. This is like arguing that the earth is round. I can do it, but I am too distracted by how insane the other side of the arguement is.

The rest of your post is pretty typical for you. Find one conservative group doing something, project it over ALL conservatives to make a good looking post on a message board. You like pull out random stuff that is barely even relevant to the discussion....

 

[kbm8795]

Support? Do you watch the news? Katie Couric? Dan Rather? Do you read the New York Times? The Washington Post? This just isn't that they tend to prefer liberal candidates, they tend to support liberal causes.

What exactly is a "liberal" cause? Perhaps factual truth instead of "truthiness?"

Where is your support that the reports and editors are conservatives? This is laughable.

Have you read the Washington Times, the official spokesnewspaper of fucking Reverend Moon, Republican benefactor and self-proclaimed monarch of America?

BigDyl, I guess ANY post that you agree with defines "owned." Fucking lame, but about what I'd expect.

Lame.

 

[Pepper]

Many of the people on that list write editorials for papers across the country.

Who do you think chooses which editorialist will appear in print?

First of all, no one said every word of every newspaper is liberal rantings.

Second, what I am talking about is the liberal slant on NEWS. The stories that are covered, the way they are covered, etc.

The fact that Rush is on the radio and George Will prints a column doesn't change the fact that most of the people delivering us the news are liberal and their bias, as much as they may try to hide it, comes through.

 

[Decker]

It is based on the fact that most of these people lean to the left. By their own admission. This is like arguing that the earth is round. I can do it, but I am too distracted by how insane the other side of the arguement is.

The rest of your post is pretty typical for you. Find one conservative group doing something, project it over ALL conservatives to make a good looking post on a message board. You like pull out random stuff that is barely even relevant to the discussion....

How do we know that they lean left. Well, some guy did a poll once. Just as the reporters leaned left, the editors and owners leaned right.

So what!

There are no journalistic ethics? I mean could you point out some liberal equivalent of the blatant pay-offs and moles of the Bush run Federal Government in our press today?

Also, how about the liberal equivalent to a fox cable network? What about all the liberal think tanks that provide fodder for all these left wing news outlets. How about all the liberal corporate owners of the media?

I can do the above w/ respect to conservatives and republicans.

 

[Pepper]

Lame.

Argueing with you is worst than argueing with my teenager.

I'm done. Enjoy your hate.

 

[Decker]

First of all, no one said every word of every newspaper is liberal rantings.

Second, what I am talking about is the liberal slant on NEWS. The stories that are covered, the way they are covered, etc.

The fact that Rush is on the radio and George Will prints a column doesn't change the fact that most of the people delivering us the news are liberal and their bias, as much as they may try to hide it, comes through.

Since bias is so prevalent. Please provide me with one example.

 

[Pepper]

Since bias is so prevalent. Please provide me with one example.

Just one?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24633-2004Sep15.html

 

[Pepper]

How do we know that they lean left. Well, some guy did a poll once. Just as the reporters leaned left, the editors and owners leaned right.

So what!

There are no journalistic ethics? I mean could you point out some liberal equivalent of the blatant pay-offs and moles of the Bush run Federal Government in our press today?

Also, how about the liberal equivalent to a fox cable network? What about all the liberal think tanks that provide fodder for all these left wing news outlets. How about all the liberal corporate owners of the media?

I can do the above w/ respect to conservatives and republicans.

Fox News is no more biased than CNN.

 

[kbm8795]

It is based on the fact that most of these people lean to the left. By their own admission.

Really now. And you are privy to not only their professional ethical training, but their personal political viewpoints?

This is like arguing that the earth is round. I can do it, but I am too distracted by how insane the other side of the arguement is.

What is insane is your amazing lack of knowledge on this topic and your insistence that "conservatives" are somehow persecuted in the media - which isn't an unusual viewpoint given that "conservatives" tend to never take responsibility for anything.

The rest of your post is pretty typical for you. Find one conservative group doing something, project it over ALL conservatives to make a good looking post on a message board. You like pull out random stuff that is barely even relevant to the discussion....

Well, when you all stop being a little flock of sheep whose talking points are fed to you because you are too damned lazy to be a real American and attempt to think for yourself, you might see me post a different response. And who the hell ever appointed you the arbiter of relevancy, particularly on a topic in which I've done the bulk of my professional training, work, and research on over the last 20 years?

For chrissakes - you see a parade of wingnuts whining about the "liberal" media over and over again and you lap it up because that's what you want to hear - not because it may or may not be based on anything.

 

[kbm8795]

That, and you're more likely get liberal content from a conservative media outlet than you to get conservative content from liberal media outlet.

That's an interesting fantasy.

 

[kbm8795]

No, here is where your wrong, and here is why Democrats will loose in 2008. YOU are the people with your head up your ass. You and Ben Affleck, Leonardo DiCaprio, and the rest of the holier-than-thou elite think you can just declare that conservative=unintelligent. The fact of the matter is that for every dipshit religious neo-con voting conservative because he thinks God told him to, there is a crackhead prostitute birthing 7 babies a decade, all addicted to herion, all living off the government for their entire lives voting democrat to secure their welfare check. Their is nothing inherently unintelligent about either idealogy when you get down to the bare bones. Each side has unintelligent people. You keep painting yourself as the intellectual, why don't you copy and paste that list of government responsibilities for me again! You are real deep thinker, alright. A deep thinker who is incapable of distinguishing the concept of how much government is good, from whether we need government at all. Keep telling yourself that your idealogy is intelligent and mine isn't, and you can keep bitching all the way until 2012.

The party known popularly as the culture of corruption is not in much of a position to win anything right now.

 

[Pepper]

Find on place where I said conservatives are persecuted?

As is usually, you lump me in with everything every conservative has said.

Yet somehow, I am the unreasonable one.

I just said they were biased. as is Fox News.

 

[clemson357]

It's just that the modern definition of what a conservative is so repugnant to thinking people

You said, "unintelligent", I didn't....

I know how antithetical thinking and intelligence is to the republican party.

Why don't you come up with something original, rather than hiding behind your ambiguous language?

Yes, you are correct. You never literally said the word "unintelligent." Lets get beyond an elementary school thought process, and quite denying the blatantly obvious. 'Modern conservatism is repugnant to anyone who thinks' = 'conservatism is unintelligent'

 

[kbm8795]

Argueing with you is worst than argueing with my teenager.

I'm done. Enjoy your hate.

Look at it from my standpoint. You have spelling difficulties when you get upset, you don't know much about the topical material except what you've had fed to you to make you feel better about yourself, and you have a propensity for requiring that ideas be cemented in terms of black and white to address your own insecurities.

 

[Decker]

Just one?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24633-2004Sep15.html

So I imagine that all the news outlets that followed all the groundless/baseless/manufactured Clinton 'Scandals' of the 1990s were engaged in conservative bias. I'd list a few but why. The cases are legion.

 

[Pepper]

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/05/24/001633.php

I have no idea if his stats are acurate.

NEW YORK Those convinced that liberals make up a disproportionate share of newsroom workers have long relied on Pew Research Center surveys to confirm this view, and they will not be disappointed by the results of Pew's latest study released today.
While most of the journalists, like many Americans, describe themselves as "moderate," a far higher number are "liberal" than in the general population.
At national organizations (which includes print, TV and radio), the numbers break down like this: 34% liberal, 7% conservative. At local outlets: 23% liberal, 12% conservative. At Web sites: 27% call themselves liberals, 13% conservatives.
This contrasts with the self-assessment of the general public: 20% liberal, 33% conservative.
The survey of 547 media professionals, completed this spring, is part of an important study released today by The Project for Excellence in Journalism and The Committee of Concerned Journalists, which mainly concerns more general issues related to newsrooms (an E & P summary will appear Monday).
While it's important to remember that most journalists in this survey continue to call themselves moderate, the ranks of self-described liberals have grown in recent years, according to Pew. For example, since 1995, Pew found at national outlets that the liberal segment has climbed from 22% to 34% while conservatives have only inched up from 5% to 7%.
The survey also revealed what some are sure to label a "values" gap. According to Pew, about 60% of the general public believes it is necessary to believe in God to be a truly moral person. The new survey finds that less than 15% of those who work at news outlets believe that. About half the general public believes homosexuality should be accepted by society ??? but about 80% of journalists feel that way.
I would be curious to see what the results would have been if "moderate" wasn't a choice. I suspect it would have been about 75-25 liberal.

 

[DOMS]

Argueing with you is worst than argueing with my teenager.

I'm done. Enjoy your hate.

Once you understand that, to him, everthing is a conspiracy, liberals can do no wrong, and needs to feel he's being persecuted, he's easier to get along with.

I've read some of his writings on others sites (where he's not ranting) and I have to say, he's rather intelligent and has a decent friendly side. He just doesn't show that here.

 

[Pepper]

So I imagine that all the news outlets that followed all the groundless/baseless/manufactured Clinton 'Scandals' of the 1990s were engaged in conservative bias. I'd list a few but why. The cases are legion.

While the Clinton scandals were overblown, they were not groundless or baseless.

 

[kbm8795]

How do we know that they lean left.

Because they are leftist traitors if they don't repeat the "conservative" talking point as gospel and without investigation.

Well, some guy did a poll once. Just as the reporters leaned left, the editors and owners leaned right.

So what!

There are no journalistic ethics? I mean could you point out some liberal equivalent of the blatant pay-offs and moles of the Bush run Federal Government in our press today?

Also, how about the liberal equivalent to a fox cable network? What about all the liberal think tanks that provide fodder for all these left wing news outlets. How about all the liberal corporate owners of the media?

I can do the above w/ respect to conservatives and republicans.

They don't seem to think one thing is wrong with the government's production of propaganda clips of "news" that were issued and aired on television stations around the country without a single attribution of the source as the GOVERNMENT. To them, that's merely "conservative" adherence to journalistic principles - meaning endorsement of propaganda presented as "news reports" originating at conservative stations.

Of course, I won't even get into the blatant misuse of the public airwaves by Sinclair Broadcasting. Or that the Right screams about offenses on networks it labels "leftist" - a dubious notion at best - and yet is silent when Rush slips obscenities into a daytime broadcast.

 

[Pepper]

Once you understand that, to him, everthing is a conspiracy, liberals can do no wrong, and needs to feel he's being persecuted, he's easier to get along with.

I've read some of his writings on others sites (where he's not ranting) and I have to say, he's rather intelligent and has a decent friendly side. He just doesn't show that here.

Interesting. His first post here that I read was one stating how happy he was with US Troop deaths in Iraq. Ever since then, I have pretty view him as an unreasonable jerk.

 

[Decker]

While the Clinton scandals were overblown, they were not groundless or baseless.

They were. How many convictions came out of the scandals?

 

[Pepper]

and yet is silent when Rush slips obscenities into a daytime broadcast.

I have no idea if this is true as I don't listen to him but I am surpised that you do.

 

[clemson357]

But truly thoughtful people are not morally bankrupt the way modern conservatives are.

You are right. Truly thoughtful people make blanket generalizations. Well, then let me partake:

Truly thoughtful people paint their opponents as "short-sighted," while they are clearly looking towards the future. Crazy 'short-sighted' things like punishing criminals don't bode well in the liberal party. Neither do crazy 'short-sighted' things like equality of opportunity rather than equality of results. No, we look to the future, and focus on banning inanimate objects, making blanket generalizations about entire races of people as a pretext for lowering academic standards and setting quotas. We look to the future, with our so-called 'progressive' tax schemes. Truly, focusing on the individual, deterring crime and rewarding success are very 'short-sighted.' We look towards the future, and say very intelligent things like "George Bush doesn't care about black people." We look towards the future, and have the hypocrisy to call conservatives "morally bankrupt," while simultaneously defending adulterous Slick Willy.

 

[Pepper]

They were. How many convictions came out of the scandals?

Oh, so there have to be convictions to really be a scandal. I guess he really didn't have sex with Monica since no one was convicted.

Again, the whole thing was ridiculously overblown (no pun intended) but come on, Clinton was involved in one scandal after another. The one that didnt get the attention it deserved was the FBI files matter.