Does anyone else think that Anne Coulter does most of her writing while snorting copious quantities of cocaine? She reminds me of every serious coke snake I ever met.
Dude I liked that tape, some of those songs were hilarious. The second Body Count tape was pretty bad though.
that and more *chatty kathy, she never stops that hundred mile an hour mouth *she looks and acts nasty *she's thin with big fake boobs and dyed blood hair In fact, she looks like she's about to give someone a lap dance every time she's on TV. I'll bet she's good at it, too.
\ 104 does that too Sam Malone is very irrating . . .after about 4 shows Rocket River mary todd is the only saving grace. .and psycho robbie when either of the three is out .. the shows loses alot [no so much with Psycho] I stopped listening becuase of Sam's Fox Newish view of the world He is like the Anti-Howard Stern
It was funny how Al Franken got Bill O'Reilly all flustered a couple of months ago. I guess Fox is paying him back. The "Fair & Balanced" slogan is a farce. Everyone knows most of the host and commentators are more on the conservative side, and it's the same with their target audience. I don't know why they keep mentioning "Fair & Balanced", as if Fox is getting defensive like O'Reilly's shouting matches. "Just Shut Up!!! I'm fair and balanced." However, I do like to watch Fox over the other news channels.
I think Fox is fair, but not balanced. They almost always have a liberal on their to give the other side. I remember back in the day, the only conservatives I would see on CNN were Crossfire, the rest of the time you didn't even see them.
Me too! It used to annoy me that the only liberals on the network were on Crossfire! Luckily, I later learned that 'commentators' are different from 'reporters'. Unfortunately for you this fact is taught in episcopalian, not catholic, secondary education. I've noticed that it's pretty much the only difference b/w the churches.
Here's a quote from O'liar about Franken a couple of months back. I guess this pertains to the smack down he got from Franken on C-Span
Yeah, that's the only difference that matters, the rest is just "Bible stuff" as I like to call it. Please don't act like there was never a left leaning media bias back in the early 90's. With Fox News now it seems the media as a whole is tilting rightward or to the center.
technically 'extra' Bible stuff. You guys are guilty of the apocrypha. Don't pretend as if the catholics-lite were brave enough to 'add to this one ultra super duper book'. God said no, but what did you guys do??? You had to do it, you had to do it. I never observed a 'left-leaning' media bias. People that complain about the bias are usually misinformed. For example, one poster here used to complain about how congressional leaders were always identified when they were republican, but never so when they were democrat. The suggestion was that the "in-group" was decidedly the 'democrats' and that the outgroup consisted of the republican party. What this particular person failed to notice was that the title 'Rep.' stands for representative not republican. ie House Rep. Barney Frank, is in fact a democrat, not a republican. Another point, imo, is that an observer should distinguish b/w what a reporter states as a matter of fact... and whether or not that reporter has or has not appealed to their own opinions. For example, if a reporter states: reporter: homosexuals exist. then the reporter has made a statement of fact. Before sensationalism took over the media (basically before the xgames; mtn. dew; 09/11, etc.) it was common to see reporters doing their jobs. Where conservatives would inevitably be offended, is that the reporter forgot to add the qualifier: reporter: homosexuals are sinners, and they exist. That doesn't mean that the first statement, again: reporter: homosexuals exist. is a statement made by a liberal. But I perceive the confusion, and I am sympathetic to the confusion. I am a democrat, and I am sensitive to the needs of stupid people.
From what I saw, Oreilly lit up Franklin hard. And many here may hate O'reilly, but I am not one of them. He actually cares about ridding the world of evil. I further like his strong belief that everyone should be accountable for their actions. But his strong passionate personality makes him sound selfish.
Awesome. Really awesome. But not that fair and balanced. What about those of us on the left who, I guess, actually care about ridding the world of good? Evil lefties need love too, JBII. And O'Reilly lit up "Franklin" [sic]? I didn't see it but I'd guess that's about as laughable as the idea of Trader_Jorge lighting up MacBeth.
I wish I could have a comeback to this, but I really don't know what you are talking about. I really don't know much about Catholicism as much as I should. I need to read up. [/QUOTE] I never observed a 'left-leaning' media bias. People that typically complained about the bias were usually misinformed. For example, one poster here used to always complain about how congressional leaders were always identified when they were republican, but never so when they were democrat. The suggestion was that the "in-group" was decidedly the 'democrats' and that the outgroup consisted of the republican party. What this particular person failed to notice was that the title 'Rep.' stands for representative not republican. ie House Rep. Barney Frank, is in fact a democrat, not a republican. Another point, imo, is that an observer should distinguish b/w what a reporter states as a matter of fact... and whether or not that reporter has or has not appealed to their own opinions. For example, if a reporter states: reporter: homosexuals exist. then the reporter has made a statement of fact. Before sensationalism took over the media (basically before the xgames; mtn. dew; 09/11, etc.) it was common to see reporters doing their jobs. Where conservatives would inevitably be offended, is that the reporter forgot to add the qualifier: reporter: homosexuals are sinners, and they exist. That doesn't mean that the first statement, again: reporter: homosexuals exist. is a statement made by a liberal. But I perceive the confusion, and I am sympathetic to the confusion. I am a democrat, and I am sensitive to the needs of stupid people. [/QUOTE] Well in that case, you could arge that Fox News isn't biased at all. After all their news reports are pretty factual. The thing is- their reports somehow always fit into the conservative worldview. They had stories about Iraqi people cheering, or how enviornmental regulations screwed people over, or they talk about liberal actors being out of touch. CNN would do the same thing but with instead they will talk about people who have been laid off, or they will talk to Iraqis who have lost family members, etc. As far as homosexual issue, how about this example. I think it was Newsweek that had a cover story on it. Who was there to represent my side? Some redneck holding up a sign saying "God hates fags" or something. I consider that to be bias. Is that how they think all right- wingers are? Of course all the homosexuals were just nice family types. They just picked out the best on one side and the worst on the other. I don't know if you read www.kausfiles.com much, but he does a good job of showing the NYT bias when it comes to welfare reform. They even had charts that were so obviously skewed I can't believe it made it to print. We also had the Howell Raines "flood the zone" coverage on the PGA issue, which no one cared about excpet the NYT. I know these reporters are smart, but they are imperfect moral beings, as a Republican I'm sensitive to people's moral failings.
Personally, I'm conservative and I really dislike him. The guy is an egomaniac and not all that smart. He has already said Matt Druge should be killed and his tirade against Franken was embarrassing. He really thought he was putting Franken in his place, but he sounded like he was going insane. He'll NEVER admit he is wrong, instead he will start yelling and cut people's mikes. I do like Rush Limbaugh though. At least Rush understands the game he is playing.
I never said lefties don't. I like the fact that O'Reilly is passionate about doing what is morally correct. Isn't O'Reilly a independent, I think so. He lets the left have their say.
Point. I got carried away in my previous post and ignored the approaches different editors can take. I would suggest that going for the 'human' story is a bit more honorable than deliberately attacking the patriotism, or even the queer obsessiveness that conservatives have re: hollywood, but then we'd be here for a while (well I guess we are usually here, but anyway). To me that goes back to the whole mtn. dew/xgames sensationalism nonsense. We all have our prurient interests; I always see people rubberneck at the scene of car accidents. IMO (as a lame attempt at defending Newsweek... when I don't really care for the magazine) an issue that isn't so polarizing, ie "gays want to marry" would be overlooked by a number of readers. A photo of an angry redneck or an angry dragqueen, however, would keep the reader's attn for a bit longer. If the redneck or the dragqueen were a midget, whoa. Pullitzer. I read Kaus on slate, but I'll check out his site. ps, Kaus's articles on slate seem strangely obsessed w/ the NYT, but that's er. a topic for another day.
Anyone who is passionate about any of these issues believes they are for what is "morally correct." When you say what you like about him is that he's against evil and for morals, I just don't even know how to respond. But when you say O'Reilly's an independent I know exactly how to respond. Let me just take a deep breath first.... Okay, here we go. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
