Did not see this posted elsewhere so here it is. I believe this is from yesterday.
qM1f5xrOfGU
A fairly high-rez photo of the offending Fox ad in the Post can be found here (http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/105636/original.jpg).
X
09-19-09, 12:33 PM
It seems they've recently rebranded this fool as their answer to Hannity, Beck, or most anybody on MSNBC. I've wondered why Sanchez is even on TV in the first place.
kvrdave
09-19-09, 12:36 PM
:lol: I like him. He really does appear foolish. And now we get to hear liberals say that CNN isn't biased and that we need to know the difference between editorial segments, etc. And those don't apply to Fox News.
If this is the best they could find, great. Olbermann is less of a moran.
Ky-Fi
09-19-09, 12:54 PM
Why yes, who could possibly accuse CNN of not covering the tea parties and related protests in an unbiased, accurate manner? Of course, CNN isn't out to take sides, they're only interested in objectively reporting the news:
A fairly high-rez photo of the offending Fox ad in the Post can be found here (http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/105636/original.jpg).
How did all those stations miss that story? Probably the same way Fox News missed the story of Cheney shooting a man with a hunting rifle.
arminius
09-19-09, 02:12 PM
Why yes, who could possibly accuse CNN of not covering the tea parties and related protests in an unbiased, accurate manner? Of course, CNN isn't out to take sides, they're only interested in objectively reporting the news:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2baxw_YScxc&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2baxw_YScxc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
The horror, people disagreeing with a reporter. Are they crazy? I mean its CNN, they just excrete love and tolerance.
mhg83
09-19-09, 02:41 PM
Why yes, who could possibly accuse CNN of not covering the tea parties and related protests in an unbiased, accurate manner? Of course, CNN isn't out to take sides, they're only interested in objectively reporting the news:
Very troubling video. Any reporter who focuses on the crazies holding signs comparing the President to Hitler instead of the reasonable people like that lady who was shouting at her in the video is a cunt whore who deserves to be raped to death. Why does the video producer settle for calling her a bitch?
jfoobar
09-19-09, 03:07 PM
It seems they've recently rebranded this fool as their answer to Hannity, Beck, or most anybody on MSNBC. I've wondered why Sanchez is even on TV in the first place.
Yup, and so another prominent (or at least heavily hyped) "news" personality will shout from the rafters with their multi-million dollar television bullhorn. Another loud, obnoxious voice will add itself to the din that is "television news."
Who wins? No one. Who loses? The news consumer, the person who just wants to turn on the fucking television and find out what is going on in the world without having to listen to the astoundingly slanted and heavily prepared and manicured views of a Lou Dobbs or a Glenn Beck or a Rachel Maddow or whatever.
ChineseCheckers
09-19-09, 03:22 PM
Who wins? No one. Who loses? The news consumer, the person who just wants to turn on the fucking television and find out what is going on in the world without having to listen to the astoundingly slanted and heavily prepared and manicured views of a Lou Dobbs or a Glenn Beck or a Rachel Maddow or whatever.
And that's why I like to get my news from this chick
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2baxw_YScxc&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2baxw_YScxc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
That particular CNN reporter is clearly agenda-based, no question about it, and she should be given a talking-to unless they want to promote her as an editorialist and not a news reporter. Her questions would have been objectively fair had she not been so clearly impassioned and pro-Obama. Is she a counterbalance to the dozens of biased "fair and balanced" Fox reporters? Curious how one never heard the accusation of bias from the right against Fox during the Bush years. The hypocrisy is blinding. The rights to be indignant and to open your belligerent hole only apply when the circumstances are unfavourable to your side. When a government you favour holds power, everyone who opposes it should just be shot or boycotted, or both.
The corn-fed Midwestern hick in the video was literally too much of a cretin to answer the reporter's (admittedly agressive) question about fascism. Probably doesn't know what the word means or who the man (Hitler (crossed with Obama; astoundingly stupid and offensive, even for mindless propaganda)) on his placard is. The woman in the second video (post #7), agree with her or not, was at least capable of a reasonable exchange, and it's a shame she associated herself with the yahoo crowd.
They should demarcate the protest areas. Person with bullhorn: "Okay, all you militant, intellect-deprived überjags with Nazi signs, who don't have a clue and who reflexively froth at the mouth at the sound of "liberal" and "socialism", over here. All of you capable of rational thought and principled, respectful opposition, over here."
Dr Mabuse
09-19-09, 03:54 PM
I bet Sanchez can play a mean jazz flute.
Ky-Fi
09-19-09, 04:01 PM
Curious how one never heard the accusation of bias from the right against Fox during the Bush years.
I don't have a problem with anyone saying Fox is biased to the right---I think any reasonable person not blinded by partisan politics can come to that conclusion. My problem is with the notion that Fox is so outrageously biased to the right that it's not a credible source of news, while the rest of the mainstream media is either objective or just a tad to the left. That's just not true. Fox's very success is a result of the lack of objectivity and hence perceived lack of credibility of the left-leaning mainstream media. And clearly, the charge that CNN is not properly covering stories is hitting a nerve and starting to be taken seriously by them, hence the video in the original post in this thread.
Norm de Plume
09-19-09, 05:00 PM
I don't have a problem with anyone saying Fox is biased to the right---I think any reasonable person not blinded by partisan politics can come to that conclusion.
But Fox itself claims the contrary. Why doesn't it just come out and be honest, and rebrand itself, admitting to its sympathies? People on the left would at least respect the honesty. It's the charade that's galling.
My sense of the rest of the mainstream American media (from a Canadian perspective; I admittedly don't pay all that much attention to them, other than what I get via our news) is that they are generally middle-of-the-road and objective in terms of the Democrat/Republican divide, but very clearly disposed toward whatever government is in power at the moment. I remember the lack of criticism in the approach to the Iraq invasion. That wasn't left-of-center. No mainstream outlet inside the States covered the dissent to any great degree. Bush had much less media opposition in his eight years than he deserved, although it increased towards the end when it was finally deemed kosher to view him as a lame duck.
And clearly, the charge that CNN is not properly covering stories is hitting a nerve and starting to be taken seriously by them, hence the video in the original post in this thread.
But CNN was clearly covering the protests, so Fox's accusation "hit a nerve" because it was such a flagrant lie.
JasonF
09-19-09, 05:01 PM
Objectivity does not mean treating the claims of every crackpot that comes along with credulity. Giving the back of the hand to Orly Taitz (for example) doesn't mean you're biased in favor of President Obama -- it simply means you're biased in favor of reality.
CharlieK
09-19-09, 08:12 PM
I wish no one had ever thought of creating a 24-hour news network.
classicman2
09-19-09, 08:33 PM
I wish no one had ever thought of creating a 24-hour news network.
Despite their 'problems', I'm glad they are in existence.
You get coverage that was not given when the 3 major networks had their news hour. You also get a different perspective than you did from CBS, NBC, & ABC was the only source(s) for broadcast news.
Rockmjd23
09-19-09, 08:35 PM
Yeah but are they better than newsreels
CharlieK
09-19-09, 08:48 PM
Despite their 'problems', I'm glad they are in existence.
You get coverage that was not given when the 3 major networks had their news hour. You also get a different perspective than you did from CBS, NBC, & ABC was the only source(s) for broadcast news.But these networks have a long list of problems that aren't outweighed by their benefits. In my opinion, the only thing they are good for are breaking news events because of their local channel access, but the big networks could always do that too with their affiliates.
I don't think any of them have really added to the public discourse and society in any positive or meaningful way - just look at the topic of this thread.
Let me just add, that this is coming from someone who used to work for one of these nets.
DVD Polizei
09-19-09, 09:57 PM
It seems they've recently rebranded this fool as their answer to Hannity, Beck, or most anybody on MSNBC. I've wondered why Sanchez is even on TV in the first place.
The next election is going to be a Southpark episode. Only several months long. Personally, I'm fortunate to not have cable anymore.
jfoobar
09-19-09, 11:01 PM
Rut row. Look at CNN's new promo:
igZZzs3MR7Y
:lol:
kvrdave
09-20-09, 12:06 AM
Rut row. Look at CNN's new promo:
igZZzs3MR7Y
:lol:
:lol: It's like when Pepsi does ads against Coke because they know they are so far behind. It almost plays like an election ad where CNN is trying to get people to like CNN again. Perhaps Dirty Sanchez will deliver the MSNBC crowd to them.
Ky-Fi
09-20-09, 09:48 AM
But Fox itself claims the contrary. Why doesn't it just come out and be honest, and rebrand itself, admitting to its sympathies? People on the left would at least respect the honesty. It's the charade that's galling.
Fine, but my point is that the same could be said of the other networks too, and that's the charade that galls people on the right. Again, to me an objective viewer would conclude that all the networks have a bias, and I would say there is ample specific evedence of that---some in this thread. But I realize it's just about an impossible task to convince the partisans on either side of that, after they've made such a boogeyman out of the network they don't like.
dork
09-20-09, 09:51 AM
But Fox itself claims the contrary. Why doesn't it just come out and be honest, and rebrand itself, admitting to its sympathies? People on the left would at least respect the honesty.
rotfl
I remember the lack of criticism in the approach to the Iraq invasion. That wasn't left-of-center. No mainstream outlet inside the States covered the dissent to any great degree.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/30/us/threats-responses-dissent-rally-washington-said-invigorate-antiwar-movement.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/15/politics/15PROT.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/19/national/19PROT.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/06/arts/mobilizing-theater-protest-again-artists-try-recapture-their-role-catalysts-for.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/international/16RALL.html
etc.
jfoobar
09-20-09, 10:00 AM
:lol: It's like when Pepsi does ads against Coke because they know they are so far behind. It almost plays like an election ad where CNN is trying to get people to like CNN again. Perhaps Dirty Sanchez will deliver the MSNBC crowd to them.
Or they could try and court the moderates, play Fox against MSNBC and claim to be the place where people who want unbiased news come. There is or will be a market(ing opportunity) for that.
wendersfan
09-20-09, 10:07 AM
Or they could try and court the moderates, play Fox against MSNBC and claim to be the place where people who want unbiased news come. There is or will be a market(ing opportunity) for that.I think they've tried that and it wasn't very successful. The thing about people who don't have strong partisan/ideological loyalties - most of them are that way because they don't know or care much about politics and current events. Not exactly a lucrative demographic for a 24-hour news network.
Ky-Fi
09-20-09, 10:49 AM
I think they've tried that and it wasn't very successful. The thing about people who don't have strong partisan/ideological loyalties - most of them are that way because they don't know or care much about politics and current events. Not exactly a lucrative demographic for a 24-hour news network.
Very good point.
jfoobar
09-20-09, 11:29 AM
I think they've tried that and it wasn't very successful. The thing about people who don't have strong partisan/ideological loyalties - most of them are that way because they don't know or care much about politics and current events. Not exactly a lucrative demographic for a 24-hour news network.
Fair enough. Perhaps instead of marketing themselves close to the ideological center, they or someone else could tap into a desire for television news with little to no opinion at all (from both the newscasters and the viewers). Perhaps a focus on the massive amount of important news stories that the other networks don't cover at all because they spend too much time covering political theater.
We have seen for some time individual news personalities waging a war of words against one another in the media. This has and is, predictably, transitioning into a comparable battle between the networks themselves. It is only a matter of time before MSNBC gets pulled into the fray.
While this will be entertaining (to the point of being yuk-worthy) for a spell, it will eventually lead to a consumer backlash as more and more of us wake up and realize that straying so damn far from the path of journalistic purity is a bad thing. These same consumers will conveniently overlook how much their own gullibility fueled all of this.
There will be, of course, money to be made and market share to be captured in this backlash.
Norm de Plume
09-20-09, 04:13 PM
But Fox itself claims the contrary. Why doesn't it just come out and be honest, and rebrand itself, admitting to its sympathies? People on the left would at least respect the honesty.rotfl
Well, you laugh, but that's what I would like to think at least. Honesty is something I (and many others, too) can respect, even if I disagree with the views of the entity displaying it.
See, up here, I read the Toronto Star, which makes no bones about its editorial position in the centre-left (the paper usually endorses, nationally and provincially, the Liberals, a centrist party). Another paper, The National Post, harbours no illusions about its more conservative perspective. Our mainstream television media strike me as very similar to the American ones. No real discernable right/left political slant, but rather a perpetuation of the interests of their corporate masters. The CBC, a partially government-funded network, is not obviously pro or anti any party (outside its comedy shows, where the Conservatives are often lampooned), but its progressive sympathies nevertheless emerge through tone and programming. The CBC's news shows seem balanced to me. In fact, its nightly program, "The National", has a weekly political segment called "At Issue", whose regular panel is, if anything, quite right-leaning. One of the three panelists, Andrew Coyne, is very clearly conservative, and he makes no bones about it, although his punditry is fair. Another, Allan Gregg, was campaign manager or something for the disastrous and brief Conservative prime ministership of Kim Campbell in 1993. He is more moderate than Coyne, and may actually now be a fence-sitter or Liberal supporter (I don't know). The third, Chantal Hebert, is a writer for the Toronto Star who has no apparent sympathies with any party. I read her often, and, if anything, her columns tend toward the right-leaning as well (at least, she seems more often critical of the centrist and leftist parties than the Conservatives).
I remember the lack of criticism in the approach to the Iraq invasion. That wasn't left-of-center. No mainstream outlet inside the States covered the dissent to any great degree.http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/30/us/threats-responses-dissent-rally-washington-said-invigorate-antiwar-movement.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/15/politics/15PROT.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/19/national/19PROT.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/06/arts/mobilizing-theater-protest-again-artists-try-recapture-their-role-catalysts-for.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/international/16RALL.html
etc.
Perhaps I should have emphasized "to any great degree". I'm sure there was some scattered mainstream dissent (all of your citations are from the Times over a four-month period, and one is an Arts column), but in-the-main it was an example of media abdicating its duty and performing as a giant uncritical spokesman for the government's war plans.
Rockmjd23
09-20-09, 04:20 PM
most of them are that way because they don't know or care much about politics and current events.
yeah but we do care about you finishing music sheep.
dork
09-20-09, 10:55 PM
all of your citations are from the Times over a four-month period, and one is an Arts column
That's because I only searched the Times site, as 1) it's the most important and influential paper in the U.S., and 2) its archived stories are easy to access. I picked out a bunch of links until I got bored of searching. I can give you similar links from the front page of pretty much any other newspaper. National news broadcasts led off with coverage of anti-war rallies. News weeklies ran opinion pieces opposing the war. None of this will be able to dispel your impression that there was not enough coverage of the anti-war argument, because in hindsight no amount of coverage of the anti-war argument would suffice for you.
No offense, but when I hear liberals complaining that the media didn't sufficiently focus on the anti-war side, what I hear is, "Why didn't the media convince the public to oppose the war?" Why couldn't they just keep hammering away until the American people came out squarely against? If the people knew what we know, surely they would come to the same conclusions!
JasonF
09-20-09, 11:24 PM
That's because I only searched the Times site, as 1) it's the most important and influential paper in the U.S., and 2) its archived stories are easy to access. I picked out a bunch of links until I got bored of searching. I can give you similar links from the front page of pretty much any other newspaper. National news broadcasts led off with coverage of anti-war rallies. News weeklies ran opinion pieces opposing the war. None of this will be able to dispel your impression that there was not enough coverage of the anti-war argument, because in hindsight no amount of coverage of the anti-war argument would suffice for you.
No offense, but when I hear liberals complaining that the media didn't sufficiently focus on the anti-war side, what I hear is, "Why didn't the media convince the public to oppose the war?" Why couldn't they just keep hammering away until the American people came out squarely against? If the people knew what we know, surely they would come to the same conclusions!
I certainly agree that the media provided plenty of coverage of the anti-war movement -- at least insofar as the media reported that there was a protest at such-and-such time in such-and-such place, and this many people were here and this is what they said. However, beyond that he-said, she-said type of reporting, there was very little critical analysis of the administration's claims. Thus, you get people like Judith Miller claiming that her "job isn't to assess the government's information and be an independent intelligence analyst myself. My job is to tell readers of The New York Times what the government thought about Iraq's arsenal."
Hank Ringworm
09-20-09, 11:34 PM
I agree that the media didn't do their job as investigators in both instances. But in this latest one, most failed to do their job as reporters, as well. Doesn't quite exonerate them.
sracer
09-21-09, 01:00 AM
Well, you laugh, but that's what I would like to think at least. Honesty is something I (and many others, too) can respect, even if I disagree with the views of the entity displaying it.
Ratings for cable news networks and election results would disagree with you (there are NOT many others). Very few people are actually interested in honesty, let alone respect it.
JasonF
09-21-09, 01:29 AM
I agree that the media didn't do their job as investigators in both instances. But in this latest one, most failed to do their job as reporters, as well. Doesn't quite exonerate them.
:shrug: I'm not aware of a reputable news outlet that didn't cover the 9/12 rallies.
Norm de Plume
09-21-09, 04:44 AM
Ratings for cable news networks and election results would disagree with you (there are NOT many others). Very few people are actually interested in honesty, let alone respect it.
If true, that's a sad state of affairs. I prize honesty and openness above almost any other attribute of humans and their institutions, superceded perhaps only by compassion and kindness. I understand the honesty part is ironic coming from a guy hiding behind a pseudonym. Nevertheless, I want news providers, who truly do shape how we see the world and what views we hold, to be forthright with me; with all of us, because the results of misinformation affect everyone, not just the misinformed (they get to vote).
The best scenario would be if all news providers, no matter the prejudice, covered all salient aspects of a story, even those not advantageous to their desired angle, and then, after the straight news, and having made clear their ideological postures beforehand, they can bring in the pundits to hammer away on the opinions they want to indoctrinate. Having one-sided punditry is not ideal, but I could at least respect the honesty of presenting it as such.
DeputyDave
09-21-09, 12:10 PM
Well, you laugh, but that's what I would like to think at least. Honesty is something I (and many others, too) can respect, even if I disagree with the views of the entity displaying it.
See, up here, I read the Toronto Star, which makes no bones about its editorial position in the centre-left (the paper usually endorses, nationally and provincially, the Liberals, a centrist party). Another paper, The National Post, harbours no illusions about its more conservative perspective. Our mainstream television media strike me as very similar to the American ones. No real discernable right/left political slant, but rather a perpetuation of the interests of their corporate masters. The CBC, a partially government-funded network, is not obviously pro or anti any party (outside its comedy shows, where the Conservatives are often lampooned), but its progressive sympathies nevertheless emerge through tone and programming. The CBC's news shows seem balanced to me. In fact, its nightly program, "The National", has a weekly political segment called "At Issue", whose regular panel is, if anything, quite right-leaning. One of the three panelists, Andrew Coyne, is very clearly conservative, and he makes no bones about it, although his punditry is fair. Another, Allan Gregg, was campaign manager or something for the disastrous and brief Conservative prime ministership of Kim Campbell in 1993. He is more moderate than Coyne, and may actually now be a fence-sitter or Liberal supporter (I don't know). The third, Chantal Hebert, is a writer for the Toronto Star who has no apparent sympathies with any party. I read her often, and, if anything, her columns tend toward the right-leaning as well (at least, she seems more often critical of the centrist and leftist parties than the Conservatives).
Perhaps I should have emphasized "to any great degree". I'm sure there was some scattered mainstream dissent (all of your citations are from the Times over a four-month period, and one is an Arts column), but in-the-main it was an example of media abdicating its duty and performing as a giant uncritical spokesman for the government's war plans.
I will say that Fox News should "brand" itself as "News For the Right" or a "Conservative News Network" the exact same time MSNBC and CNN do the same thing and advocate Liberalism. Because they are EXACTLY as biased. If you are not seeing it then you are hopelessly partisan.
The Bus
09-21-09, 05:10 PM
:shrug: I'm not aware of a reputable news outlet that didn't cover the 9/12 rallies.
I will say that Fox News should "brand" itself as "News For the Right" or a "Conservative News Network" the exact same time MSNBC and CNN do the same thing and advocate Liberalism. Because they are EXACTLY as biased.
I don't get MSNBC up here, so I don't know how partisan it is, though I have heard it is quite so.
I do watch CNN several times a week on an involuntary basis (don't ask), and I do not detect a station-wide bias toward Democrats or against Republicans. Panels are always peopled by representatives from both sides, and the anchors (at least the ones I see) soberly report issues from both perspectives, whether or not they have personal preferences (who doesn't?). The CNN reporter from the earlier video was very obviously a strident partisan, though.
By the way, how do you explain Lou Dobbs, who could hardly be mistaken for a rabid Democrat?
If you are not seeing it then you are hopelessly partisan.
How can I be partisan towards the Democrats when I wouldn't have voted for either of the two main parties were I an American?
Rockmjd23
09-21-09, 10:12 PM
CNN only seems slightly left of center to me.
Cheato
09-22-09, 07:03 AM
Everything's relative. From your position, CNN seems only slightly left of center, and Fox seems extremely right of center. About the Canadian standpoint, going back to Norm de Plume's posts, all I thought was that you (Norm, or maybe Canadians, in general) probably don't truly understand an American point of view, so looking at it from your perspective, it is difficult to make any kind of judgment about bias in the media.
From my position, CNN and Fox seem equally far away from me, so that just means I'm to the right of you (in an extremely oversimplified way). However, anyone claiming to know where the center is is an idiot (sorry, I didn't read this thread that closely, so I hope nobody claimed that--it wasn't meant as a personal attack!).
I gave up on cable "news" years ago, and my life is much better for it.
I'm an American living outside of the U.S., and I can say that people here really don't understand Americans at all. They think they do, sure, and they wish they could pigeonhole Americans into categories in order to praise or, more likely, condemn them, but they don't understand us at all. When I read the English-language newspapers here, it just makes me sad--first because of the quality and content of the American news that actually makes it out of America, second because of the extreme biases inherent therein, and third because that's what people here will read and think that it represents America. In a way, I guess it does, since the idea of America is that everyone can have their own beliefs and can give voice to those beliefs, but Americans see and understand that, compared to non-Americans who see that and perceive it as the mainstream.
This is the first time I have ever heard of Rick Sanchez, and of course the first time I ever heard his voice, and it just made me think he sounds exactly like Rush Limbaugh. Different words, same speech patterns, intonation, techniques, etc.. They are cut from the same cloth, just in different colors. I would hope that anyone complaining about one would complain about the other, as well. Neither one has any valid claim to be speaking any "truth" other than what they truly believe will get them ratings.
Is anybody really surprised by Fox's advertising/exaggerating/lying? Are CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, etc., free of blame? Just condemn them all, stop watching, and find real sources of news and debate (like this forum?).
DeputyDave
09-22-09, 09:50 AM
Everything's relative. From your position, CNN seems only slightly left of center, and Fox seems extremely right of center. About the Canadian standpoint, going back to Norm de Plume's posts, all I thought was that you (Norm, or maybe Canadians, in general) probably don't truly understand an American point of view, so looking at it from your perspective, it is difficult to make any kind of judgment about bias in the media.
From my position, CNN and Fox seem equally far away from me, so that just means I'm to the right of you (in an extremely oversimplified way). However, anyone claiming to know where the center is is an idiot (sorry, I didn't read this thread that closely, so I hope nobody claimed that--it wasn't meant as a personal attack!).
I gave up on cable "news" years ago, and my life is much better for it.
I'm an American living outside of the U.S., and I can say that people here really don't understand Americans at all. They think they do, sure, and they wish they could pigeonhole Americans into categories in order to praise or, more likely, condemn them, but they don't understand us at all. When I read the English-language newspapers here, it just makes me sad--first because of the quality and content of the American news that actually makes it out of America, second because of the extreme biases inherent therein, and third because that's what people here will read and think that it represents America. In a way, I guess it does, since the idea of America is that everyone can have their own beliefs and can give voice to those beliefs, but Americans see and understand that, compared to non-Americans who see that and perceive it as the mainstream.
This is the first time I have ever heard of Rick Sanchez, and of course the first time I ever heard his voice, and it just made me think he sounds exactly like Rush Limbaugh. Different words, same speech patterns, intonation, techniques, etc.. They are cut from the same cloth, just in different colors. I would hope that anyone complaining about one would complain about the other, as well. Neither one has any valid claim to be speaking any "truth" other than what they truly believe will get them ratings.
Is anybody really surprised by Fox's advertising/exaggerating/lying? Are CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, etc., free of blame? Just condemn them all, stop watching, and find real sources of news and debate (like this forum?).
:up: I agree. The only time I turn on the news is when there is some breaking important news story happening and I'm not near a computer.
I personally could care less about the little bit of political leaning that every station does. What really pisses me off and worries me is the complacency in trying to sell the global warming agenda to the public. Because of the MSM something like the Cap and Trade bill might be passed unnoticed. At least Fox (as far as I know) is more truthful about the "debate is over" part of it. If I were a conspiracy theorist (which I am not) I might suspect that the hubbub over health care has been manufactured by a complacent media in order to get people riled up while Cap and Trade slips by in the night. I would rather the government provide DMV quality health care to every man, woman, child, and illegal in the US them pass this bill. It would be much more devastating to our economy and future.
Norm de Plume
09-22-09, 08:19 PM
Everything's relative. From your position, CNN seems only slightly left of center, and Fox seems extremely right of center. About the Canadian standpoint, going back to Norm de Plume's posts, all I thought was that you (Norm, or maybe Canadians, in general) probably don't truly understand an American point of view, so looking at it from your perspective, it is difficult to make any kind of judgment about bias in the media.
What is "an American point of view"? What is a "Canadian point of view"? There are millions of American points of view. There are millions of Canadian points of view. There are millions of Americans to whom I would relate much more closely, and with whom I would have much more of a kinship, than millions of Canadians. Conversely, there are millions of Canadians and Americans to whom I would not be able to relate if the discussion turned political (which it often does whether one tries to avoid it or not), and whose views I would find anathema (and vice versa).
As for not being able to make a judgment on bias, I have eyes, ears, and a functioning brain, and when I see, on a network accused of bias, a panel discussion in which both sides are fairly represented by folks with passionate opposing views, and debate is allowed to be vigorous without a host cutting off anyone's mic, I consider that "fair and balanced".
I think perhaps Rockmjd23 is not far from the truth in saying CNN is slightly more inclined towards liberal positions, but there's an effort made to include all viewpoints.
From my position, CNN and Fox seem equally far away from me, so that just means I'm to the right of you (in an extremely oversimplified way). However, anyone claiming to know where the center is is an idiot (sorry, I didn't read this thread that closely, so I hope nobody claimed that--it wasn't meant as a personal attack!).
The center of the political spectrum is kind of an amorphous compass point, but obviously it's not inaccurate to say that people who hold moderate positions are closer to the "center" than people who hold radical or unorthodox positions.
dork
09-22-09, 08:42 PM
There are millions of Canadians? :jawdrop:
Norm de Plume
09-22-09, 09:40 PM
Astounding, eh? Every day is an education.
CRM114
09-22-09, 11:43 PM
How is this guy Hannity or Limbaugh? According to that video, he was on at 3:00 in the afternoon. The only people watching him are sitting in doctor's offices or waiting in a line somewhere.
He seemed to make some valid points. :shrug: Fox dropped the ball on that ad. And like I said, no news network covered that legalize marijuana rally I was at in 1988 or thereabouts. ;) Just as many people. Hell, pro-choice rallies get that many people all the time and no one covers it.
And for the record, Fox promotes the right wing agenda, MSNBC promotes the left-wing agenda, CNN doesn't promote either but leans slightly to the left I suppose - just like the American people in the last election. They do give an hour to birther Lou Dobbs though.
CRM114
09-22-09, 11:57 PM
I will say that Fox News should "brand" itself as "News For the Right" or a "Conservative News Network" the exact same time MSNBC and CNN do the same thing and advocate Liberalism. Because they are EXACTLY as biased. If you are not seeing it then you are hopelessly partisan.
MSNBC is light years from CNN. Who does MSNBC have like Lou Dobbs? No one that I know of. The prime time of MSNBC is geared toward the left just as Fox is geared to the right. And MSNBC is doing it for better ratings. They tried to jump on the conservative bandwagon when they thought it might improve things. They dumped Phil Donahue's VERY liberal and anti-war program and brought in Tucker Carlson. They had Michael Savage. Joe Scarborough had a show. This foray into the left with Maddow and Olbermann is simply to capture any audience that Fox does not. I for one welcome MSNBC because Fox needs a counterweight, even if it's as lame as MSNBC.
Hank Ringworm
09-23-09, 03:15 AM
How is this guy Hannity or Limbaugh? According to that video, he was on at 3:00 in the afternoon. The only people watching him are sitting in doctor's offices or waiting in a line somewhere.
He seemed to make some valid points. :shrug: Fox dropped the ball on that ad. And like I said, no news network covered that legalize marijuana rally I was at in 1988 or thereabouts. ;) Just as many people. Hell, pro-choice rallies get that many people all the time and no one covers it.
And for the record, Fox promotes the right wing agenda, MSNBC promotes the left-wing agenda, CNN doesn't promote either but leans slightly to the left I suppose - just like the American people in the last election. They do give an hour to birther Lou Dobbs though.
Hannity is on at 300 pm where I am.
johnglass
09-23-09, 03:50 AM
Ah, Rick Sanchez. I remember this tool doing the local news in South Florida when I was growing up (coincidentally for a Fox station).
Apparently "Once mowed down a pedestrian and crippled him for life while drunk driving" on your resume doesn't preclude you from employment at CNN.
Cheato
09-23-09, 04:04 AM
What is "an American point of view"? What is a "Canadian point of view"? There are millions of American points of view. There are millions of Canadian points of view.
That's why I said "a" and not "the." I'm just saying that you have an impression of life in America, but unless you truly live in the country (and in different places around the country) for a decent amount of time, you will not really understand any of the people living there (particularly as pertains to this discussion, what they think and feel when watching/reading something).
Watching cable news and reading the Chicago Tribune will not help you understand Americans. I wasn't talking at all about having sympathetic views, or agreeing/disagreeing, or feeling kinship. I was talking about how when a Canadian, or a Japanese person, or an Iranian sees a "news" report by somebody like Rick Sanchez that it is a different experience than when an American sees that same report. The non-Americans put different weights on what what he says means about America and Americans. Americans just think he's another random person who is shooting his mouth off, and they either decide if they agree or don't (or are moved toward or away from his position, based on his words and how he delivers them).
I can't count the number of times I have been told that I am not a "typical American" by people in Japan. I always tell them that yes, I am, and no, I'm not. They just don't know what a "typical American" is because there really is no such thing.
Subgeniusguy
09-23-09, 07:01 AM
Ah, Rick Sanchez. I remember this tool doing the local news in South Florida when I was growing up (coincidentally for a Fox station).
Apparently "Once mowed down a pedestrian and crippled him for life while drunk driving" on your resume doesn't preclude you from employment at CNN.
Cold bit of truth in that. He could probably be a Senator too.
Gunde
09-23-09, 07:08 AM
Who the hell watches Fox News anyway?
CRM114
09-23-09, 09:27 AM
Hannity is on at 300 pm where I am.
On the radio.
chuckd21
09-23-09, 10:51 AM
You guys would all be much happier (as I am) if you just turn to Univision, turn down the volume, and watch their news programs.
Does the forecast call for a cold front in the upper latitudes?
CharlieK
09-23-09, 11:32 AM
Cold bit of truth in that. He could probably be a Senator too.Or even a First Lady...if it wasn't against God's Law.
dick_grayson
09-23-09, 11:33 AM
I don't have a problem with anyone saying Fox is biased to the right---I think any reasonable person not blinded by partisan politics can come to that conclusion. My problem is with the notion that Fox is so outrageously biased to the right that it's not a credible source of news, while the rest of the mainstream media is either objective or just a tad to the left. That's just not true. Fox's very success is a result of the lack of objectivity and hence perceived lack of credibility of the left-leaning mainstream media. And clearly, the charge that CNN is not properly covering stories is hitting a nerve and starting to be taken seriously by them, hence the video in the original post in this thread.
I don't think so. Look at talk radio. It's almost entirely conservative. It's not because it's biased or anything like that but because [many] conservatives prefer this type of medium. Liberals don't care much for talk radio or cable news. The "ratings" issue or bias distraction doesn't consider these facts.
orangecrush
09-23-09, 11:47 AM
Who the hell watches Fox News anyway?Actually, quite a few people.
orangecrush
09-23-09, 11:50 AM
I don't think so. Look at talk radio. It's almost entirely conservative. It's not because it's biased or anything like that but because [many] conservatives prefer this type of medium. Liberals don't care much for talk radio or cable news. The "ratings" issue or bias distraction doesn't consider these facts.rotfl Many of the NPR fans at my office might disagree with this. Besides that, what do your political beliefs have to do with your entertainment preferences?
dick_grayson
09-23-09, 11:58 AM
rotfl Many of the NPR fans at my office might disagree with this. Besides that, what do your political beliefs have to do with your entertainment preferences?
I guess "almost entirely" slipped past your radar.
CRM114
09-23-09, 12:22 PM
rotfl Many of the NPR fans at my office might disagree with this. Besides that, what do your political beliefs have to do with your entertainment preferences?
Are you extrapolating your anecdote country-wide? Do you think NPR has the ratings of conservative talk radio?
Political beliefs have everything to do with entertainment preferences. If you are conservative and politically engaged, chances are you prefer Fox over MSNBC, listen to talk radio and frequent conservative websites. And since the television and newspaper outlets are perceived to be "liberal-biased," I'd imagine that those are diminished. I'm not getting your point I guess.
wishbone
09-23-09, 12:23 PM
Liberals don't care much for talk radio or cable news.Almost entirely possible that orangecrush was referring to this quote.
VinVega
09-23-09, 12:37 PM
Who the hell watches Fox News anyway?
Non-"Socialists" that's who. ;)
The real truth is it's all about money and what brings in the money? Simple reporting of the facts or entertainment and opinion? Entertainment is the focus of the news networks, bottom line. You have to filter the raw news out of the entertainment crap if that's what you're interested in. Most people like the cat fights...obviously. I don't watch the 24-7 news networks much anymore because of the constant desire to be "entertaining."
orangecrush
09-23-09, 02:31 PM
I don't think so. Look at talk radio. It's almost entirely conservative. It's not because it's biased or anything like that but because [many] conservatives prefer this type of medium. Liberals don't care much for talk radio or cable news. The "ratings" issue or bias distraction doesn't consider these facts.
Are you extrapolating your anecdote country-wide? Do you think NPR has the ratings of conservative talk radio?
Political beliefs have everything to do with entertainment preferences. If you are conservative and politically engaged, chances are you prefer Fox over MSNBC, listen to talk radio and frequent conservative websites. And since the television and newspaper outlets are perceived to be "liberal-biased," I'd imagine that those are diminished. I'm not getting your point I guess.Perhaps I wasn't clear. The idea that political views influnce your medium of choice is rediculous.
sracer
09-23-09, 02:42 PM
Perhaps I wasn't clear. The idea that political views influnce your medium of choice is rediculous.
While it may not influence one's medium of choice, there is probably a connection. For example, older folks tend to be conservative, and their lifestyle at their stage of life might be more conducive to listening to a radio than watching a TV. I don't know if that example is factual, but it might be an explanation.
orangecrush
09-23-09, 03:02 PM
While it may not influence one's medium of choice, there is probably a connection. For example, older folks tend to be conservative, and their lifestyle at their stage of life might be more conducive to listening to a radio than watching a TV. I don't know if that example is factual, but it might be an explanation.That seems like a stretch to me.
eXcentris
09-23-09, 03:04 PM
Which one goes first, hearing or vision? :)
I can't stand Sanchez and Lou Dobbs.
sracer
09-23-09, 03:07 PM
That seems like a stretch to me.
It might be. But do you have any other theories as to why conservative shows seem to dominate radio?
orangecrush
09-23-09, 03:17 PM
It might be. But do you have any other theories as to why conservative shows seem to dominate radio?I think most atempts by liberals (in the last 20 years or so) have been failures because the hosts and shows haven't been very good. If Howard Stern did a political show, I think it would be sucessful because he is a good radio show host.
CRM114
09-23-09, 05:19 PM
I think most atempts by liberals (in the last 20 years or so) have been failures because the hosts and shows haven't been very good. If Howard Stern did a political show, I think it would be sucessful because he is a good radio show host.
Nah. It's the content.
Do you really believe Sean Hannity or Laura Ingram are much more compelling personalities than Thom Hartman or Ed Schultz? For whatever reason, the conservative viewpoint is unsavory and hearing it reinforced by others fills a void. (By unsavory I mean the "pulling up the bootstraps" and lack of compassion for your fellow man. One must admit those are not views you go around announcing at the church social.)
orangecrush
09-23-09, 05:45 PM
Nah. It's the content.
Do you really believe Sean Hannity or Laura Ingram are much more compelling personalities than Thom Hartman or Ed Schultz? For whatever reason, the conservative viewpoint is unsavory and hearing it reinforced by others fills a void. (By unsavory I mean the "pulling up the bootstraps" and lack of compassion for your fellow man. One must admit those are not views you go around announcing at the church social.)I honestly don't know anything about Thom Hartman or Ed Schultz. Are they any good? Personally, I can't stand Sean Hannity, and I don't really see his appeal. I could take or leave Laura, but would rather look at her than listen to her. To be honest, I am not a huge fan of most political talk radio shows. I prefer stuff like The Best Show on WFMU and The Tony Kornheiser Show. Though, you know a liberal political show I could totally see myself listening to is James Carville. I like him every time he is on Kornhieser's show and TV panels I have seen him on. He's a witty guy and very good at presenting an argument in an entertaining way IMO.
Do you not like listening to non-music radio shows in general? (I assume liberals like podcasts as much as conservatives do) If not, what political views inform your preference?
Rockmjd23
09-23-09, 06:58 PM
It might be. But do you have any other theories as to why conservative shows seem to dominate radio?
Because it is the one area not dominated by the left.
Rockmjd23
09-23-09, 07:00 PM
. (By unsavory I mean the "pulling up the bootstraps" and lack of compassion for your fellow man. One must admit those are not views you go around announcing at the church social.)
:lol: Yet it has been shown in multiple studies that conservatives give more to charity than liberals. Where's the compassion?
CharlieK
09-23-09, 08:18 PM
:lol: Yet it has been shown in multiple studies that conservatives give more to charity than liberals. Where's the compassion?Do you have any data on the political leanings of the employees of charities and non-profits? It's nice to just write a check, but dedicating yourself to these causes knowing the hours will be long, the job will be challenging, and you won't be making much money seems much more admirable to me.
Rockmjd23
09-23-09, 08:33 PM
Do you have any data on the political leanings of the employees of charities and non-profits? It's nice to just write a check, but dedicating yourself to these causes knowing the hours will be long, the job will be challenging, and you won't be making much money seems much more admirable to me.
No I don't, but you raise a good point - that there are different ways to help and show compassion to the poor. :up:
X
09-23-09, 08:56 PM
No I don't, but you raise a good point - that there are different ways to help and show compassion to the poor. :up:And make a living from doing it!
CRM114
09-23-09, 11:37 PM
I honestly don't know anything about Thom Hartman or Ed Schultz. Are they any good? Personally, I can't stand Sean Hannity, and I don't really see his appeal. I could take or leave Laura, but would rather look at her than listen to her. To be honest, I am not a huge fan of most political talk radio shows. I prefer stuff like The Best Show on WFMU and The Tony Kornheiser Show. Though, you know a liberal political show I could totally see myself listening to is James Carville. I like him every time he is on Kornhieser's show and TV panels I have seen him on. He's a witty guy and very good at presenting an argument in an entertaining way IMO.
Do you not like listening to non-music radio shows in general? (I assume liberals like podcasts as much as conservatives do) If not, what political views inform your preference?
I like Thom Hartmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thom_Hartmann). Very smart, always calm, and well researched.
I'm usually listening to music or Howard Stern in the car. If I'm lucky, I can catch a bit of Hartmann's show during commercials. I used to listen to the Philly sports talk station but it's too staticky after listening to satellite.
CRM114
09-23-09, 11:45 PM
:lol: Yet it has been shown in multiple studies that conservatives give more to charity than liberals. Where's the compassion?
Ask Eric Cantor who thinks uninsured cancer patients should beg for charity. "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, cancer woman!"
dork
09-23-09, 11:47 PM
I like Thom Hartmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thom_Hartmann). Very smart
He should be -- he's got a Ph.D.! in "homeopathic medicine" from an unaccredited diploma mill
JasonF
09-24-09, 12:07 AM
He should be -- he's got a Ph.D.! in "homeopathic medicine" from an unaccredited diploma mill
Degrees don't make you smart, Scarecrow. He's a career dee-jay. Most of those guys (see also Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity) have little or no formal education beyond high school. As long as he doesn't hold himself out as a doctor (cf. "Doctor" Laura), I don't really care that he's got a nonsense degree.
dork
09-24-09, 12:09 AM
Now pretend he's right-wing and has a degree in Capitalism Appreciation!
wishbone
09-24-09, 12:14 AM
Do people beg for pro bono legal counsel or is it an offer made to assist them?
orangecrush
09-24-09, 10:02 AM
I like Thom Hartmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thom_Hartmann). Very smart, always calm, and well researched.
I'm usually listening to music or Howard Stern in the car. If I'm lucky, I can catch a bit of Hartmann's show during commercials. I used to listen to the Philly sports talk station but it's too staticky after listening to satellite.I will have to check him out. I like that he wrote a book arguing that "Kennedy's assassination resulted from a conspiracy among three mafia "godfathers," who took advantage of a proposed 1963 USA-sponsored coup (against Cuba's Fidel Castro) to kill the President and then hide their tracks in the resulting cover-up of the coup plans." I love Adam Curry on The No Agenda podcast. I find conspiracy theorists very entertaining.
orangecrush
09-28-09, 11:28 AM
I like Thom Hartmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thom_Hartmann). Very smart, always calm, and well researched.
I'm usually listening to music or Howard Stern in the car. If I'm lucky, I can catch a bit of Hartmann's show during commercials. I used to listen to the Philly sports talk station but it's too staticky after listening to satellite. I listened to one of his '07 3 hour radio shows. To be honest, I found it hard to take him seriously after he asserted that Maoist Communism represents the far left of the political spectrum, Democrats represent the middle and Republicans represent the far right. I did like that he had a Maoist Communist on his show and called them out for not answering his questions. I liked his non-ranting style much more than Hanity or the other political talk radio hosts I have heard. I also thought he had a few good points to make. However, he was going on and on about how deregulation (the source of all our problems) started with Reagan. One of the last callers of the show pointed out that Carter started deregulation in the number of industries and Hartmann totally agreed with him. Why not give Carter some of the same crap you gave Reagan?
I will listen to a few of his recent shows to give him a fair shake. Hopefully I will get more interesting observations and less bashing.
Cheato
09-28-09, 12:03 PM
Dude, a little respect. "Reagan."
JasonF
09-28-09, 12:15 PM
Everyone knows that Ronald Reagan was just a puppet for Donald Regan. Do you really think the similar names are just a coincidence?
orangecrush
09-28-09, 12:34 PM
Dude, a little respect. "Reagan."Once someone dies, I think it is OK to misspell their name. What do they care anymore?
CharlieK
09-28-09, 12:36 PM
Once someone dies, I think it is OK to misspell their name. What do they care anymore?Awesome! In your face Walter Crondyke!
DeputyDave
09-28-09, 12:46 PM
Once someone dies, I think it is OK to misspell their name. What do they care anymore?
Yay! I've been waiting years to say
Teddy Killachickbydrowningthenrunawayandspendyourlifeinaboozefilledhazetryingtoforgetady
CharlieK
09-28-09, 12:52 PM
Whew! Thanks for taking the attention away from the lameness of my joke with your even lamer joke.
DeputyDave
09-28-09, 12:55 PM
Whew! Thanks for taking the attention away from the lameness of my joke with your even lamer joke.
Buy: