kartelite wrote:
Just wondering, as I always hear on this site about how Fox is conservative and others liberal...how do these political or ideological leanings manifest themselves in the reporting? Don't you just report news? I mean, just give us the facts about the day's most important events, like a flood in Nicaragua or elections in Morocco or whatever.
Nope, Walter Cronkite changed all that years ago.
Liberals are idealistic fools and conservatives are hypocritical phonies. You all suck.
Here is a clue wrote:
Pull your head out of whatever its in. Just this summer reports by researchers that looked at campaign contributions by media companies and journalist revealed that it was overwelmingly financially supportive of liberals. Not sure it 90% is correct, I'll let you look that one up, but it was high.
So who is marginally functional? that would be a big finger pointed in your direction.
You really are an idiot, since you didn't read that "study" about financial support either. What it said was of the tens of 1000's of people in the various media outlets they managed to find a couple hundred that had actually made contributions. Of those there was a liberial leaning, although the largest contributers were conservative. The study also pointed out (if you'd bothered to real it) that the vast majority of news organizations have policies AGAINST contributions.
It said nothing about media companies, although as corporations (i.e. News Corp) they tend to be more financially supportive of conservatives.
This is like shooting fish in a barrel. The studies proving conservatives have cognative disorders are certainly true.
kartelite wrote:
Did you even read the article beyond the first paragraph?
A UCLA professor is a "special interest group?"
Yes, but you didn't.
"Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue"
ADA is a special interest group, and was the basis for their rankings.
Do you know the difference between "it's" and "its?"
Did you take your Xanax this evening?
You know the difference between a forum post and a business letter? Maybe you should stop being such an anal retentive.
Bill O'Reilly just absolutely eviscerated NBC and CNN over a phony story that Move-on put out saying that O'Reilly went on a racist rant in a recent program. Without bothering to check the facts, NBS and CNN aired almost word-for-word the phoney story. A previous poster had it right, the legacy media are so obsessed with Fox News they will do anything, no matter how dishonest to attack them.
Keith Stone wrote:
Yes, but you didn't.
"Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue"
ADA is a special interest group, and was the basis for their rankings.
Considering it is a "liberal" group, I fail to see how you of all people are discounting it. But I guess you like to have your cake and eat it too. Although the measure seems pretty objective, and anything that makes it into the QJE tends to be. I doubt you could understand the actual article though, I'm guessing scary things like derivatives and logs would confuse you.
Move on owns them wrote:
Bill O'Reilly just absolutely eviscerated NBC and CNN over a phony story that Move-on put out saying that O'Reilly went on a racist rant in a recent program. Without bothering to check the facts, NBS and CNN aired almost word-for-word the phoney story. A previous poster had it right, the legacy media are so obsessed with Fox News they will do anything, no matter how dishonest to attack them.
O'Reilly is the one obsessed with the NY Times. He is an absolute joke of a "reporter." O'Reilly goes on and on about how other media make personal attacks against him, and how wrong it is, and then what does he do??? He constantly makes personal attacks and THREATS against other news media organizations and people. He's a joke, and very, very bad joke.
YOU brought up Bush, not us. I didn't see his name mentioned in this thread before your post.
Wrongo. Hypnotoad mentioned "Bush-bots" before that particular post. So let's stay on topic --the NY Times and their liberal bent. Not Larry Craig. Not Bush.
Actually, an 11 p.m. newcast here in NYC showed the O'Reilly story and it's not all that flattering to Bill. Apparently after going to dinner at the well-repsetced Sylvia's in Harlem, he went on his radio show and expressed astonishment that it was just like a restaurant anywhere else, and he was supposed there weren't just guys calling each other names that...hip-hop guys might use. O'Reilly, in his twisted way of thinking, probably thought that was a compliment. He really needs to get out more.
Dusty Bones wrote:
Actually, an 11 p.m. newcast here in NYC showed the O'Reilly story and it's not all that flattering to Bill. Apparently after going to dinner at the well-repsetced Sylvia's in Harlem, he went on his radio show and expressed astonishment that it was just like a restaurant anywhere else, and he was supposed there weren't just guys calling each other names that...hip-hop guys might use. O'Reilly, in his twisted way of thinking, probably thought that was a compliment. He really needs to get out more.
That was the hatchet piece that O'Reilly eviscerated. It was a false. Black journalist Juan Williams, who was on the show and at Silvia with O'Reilly said the story was false.
Qullivle little twits like you will always fall for a story they want to hear.
You're the one who need to get out more.
The story is not "false." Excerpts from O'Reilly's own radio show in his own voice were run. The co-owner of Sylvia's was interviewed. There is nothing "false" about it.
NY Times liberal bias. Caught in a lie. Try to stay on topic.
Stalin Lives wrote:
NY Times liberal bias. Caught in a lie. Try to stay on topic.
Stay on topic? OK. The NY Times thinks the war is a disaster and they gave preferential treatment to an ad which communicates that same message. What the big fuc\king deal?
If CNN and NBC deliberately fabricates news and you believe what they say then you're an idiot.
The legacy media simply cannot be trusted. They've lost both their heads and their credibility.
The actual broadcast.
Gray Bag Lady wrote:
Spoken like the most stable of all liberals.
Nice non-comeback, jackass.
hypnotoad wrote:
Stay on topic? OK. The NY Times thinks the war is a disaster and they gave preferential treatment to an ad which communicates that same message. What the big f***ing deal?
What the f*** are you talking about? The add was a smear campaign directed at General Petraeus. Nothing more.
Move on owns them wrote:
If CNN and NBC deliberately fabricates news and you believe what they say then you're an idiot.
Examples, please.
Yesterday's "Bill OReilly is a racist" story. Links provided above.
You use a Fox News link to refute the story.
The actual tapes of what O'Reilly said have been all over by now. This is not a manufactured story.