Would it be fair and/or accurate to draw an analogy between ownership of Media and NBA Franchises. Are NBA franchise owners actually like their players... or vice-versa? Are Media moguls (corporate or otherwise) actually like the journalists they employ... or vice-versa?
I will agree with Deckard above in agreeing that bama does seem to think about some issues, unlike the troll you mentioned. I, too, wish he would educate himself on the fiscal policies created by the current prez or at least provide evidence of his claims rather than simply chanting the Republican mantra and thinking that it suffices in the face of hard facts and evidence. Nobody is perfect, but comparing bama to Troll_Jerk is overboard. EDIT: Bama also seems pretty intransigent on the "liberal media" as well.
I started the thread hoping to get opinions on whether these themes Clinton hit on would play well in the general election. Well?
I mean, c'mon, of course the media is liberal. I should know being that I am a part of it, both working for the newspaper and doing a sports radio show. See why I'm in sports? There is no argument to be made that the media is conservative. None. Even NPR, which uses tax dollars taken from MY wallet, is about as far left as it gets. I just think it is funny that the libs have their little monopoly of the media broken by talk radio and Fox News and yet they claim the Right runs the media. Sure......One medium (talk radio) dominated and one network does not equal that the libs are in the minority of media. And yes, Maynard, Dan Rather is a liberal! There is no question of that. This is the man who still believes Bill Clinton is "still an honest man." (a direct quote from the Dan himself on the O'Reilly factor!) If you believe that, I guess you think Tupac still lives, Auburn can win a national championship this year, Yinka Dare is primed for a comeback, there is a Loch Ness monster, people frequently get lost in the Bermuda Triangle (not the one mentioned in Bull Durham, I've been lost in there for most of life. ) and Bigfoot/Yeti/Sasquatch/Abominable Snowman is running around in the hills near your home.
You have *still* not provided any evidence to support your claim. Shoot, you still haven't given me a single liberal talk show. If the liberal media was so pervasive, you should be able to give me 100. But the only ones you could come up with was Paula Zahn and Geraldo Rivera? C'mon, dude. That's a *huge* leap. But if it's easier for you to dismiss an idea because you see it leading to Yinka Dare's comeback, more power to you.
classic when asked to produce a source backing up his claim that the media is liberal, he quotes a well known conservative organization who has a track record of twisting, spinning and distorting what people say to make them look bad...
A report that, as I showed above, proves that there *is* no liberal bias. Sigh. Maynard, what does your sig mean? What langauge is it?
You cry about evidence and I can only name one medium dominated by conservatives (talk radio) and one network that even allows them any time of substance (Fox). What is that saying? That the rest of them are liberal as hell. I don't have to name them all because they are ALL liberal. Even Crossfire can be considered a liberal show since the bowtied rep of the right wing Tucker Carlson is such a tool. You want evidence, watch them someday....they take their marching orders from the NY Times, the so-called paper of record editorial page. I guarantee if it is in the Times op-ed, it will be discussed. When your agenda is set by something so liberal......what does that make you....liberal. Get over it.
ok, ill try to interject some rational discussion here and see if you will bite.. ok i know that a majority (not 90% but like 60%) of journalist have more liberal views.. but the companies that OWN the papers, radio stations and tv stations are VERY conservative and ultimatly, dont you think the big big boss gets what they want? i.e. more negative stories, views of Democrats and more possitive and looking over negative stories on Repub's?
Ok, rimrocker... I'll give my opinion on Clinton's points. 1: Dead on. the current administration is so bound by ideology that they lack the capacity to change course, even when a policy is demonstrably wrong. 2: Obviously a slam at the Administration for dismissing the UN before the war on Iraq and now rushing to get money and troops from the same folks. We need to win the war on terror, but we can't do it alone, so we need to "make more friends and less terrorists." 3: Show just how painful the Bush tax cuts will be to the middle class and the disadvantaged, while being a god-send to the wealthy. Emphasize the tax cuts... showing (costs) in real terms, like cops on the street, after-school programs, worker training programs, etc., while showing the disproportionality of the cuts. 4: Hammer the Bush Administration on what it's real agenda is. Dems aren't the ones playing class warfare... the Republicans made choices to hurt poor and middle-class Americans and to favor the wealthy. 5: Trying to energize Democrats to actively spread the message that there is a good alternative to Bush. He kept urging the crowd to go out and talk to your neighbors about what's going wrong, but tell them with a smile and tell them what Democrats would do differently. (that) the current tone of this administration will wear thin if compared with an optimistic and upbeat Dem candidate. 6: Hammer the Bush Administration's 180 degree change on enviornmental issues. He also sounded out some environmental themes for mainstream appeal. I think he gave a great speech to his audience. And that doesn't surprize me at all. The guy is a hell of a politician and can give a hell of a speech. He's a natural, charismatic speaker and always has been. His problem has always been his zipper and covering up his personal indiscretions, not his amazing political abilities. Gore made a huge mistake by not using him in 2000. He'd be president today if he had, in my opinion. The candidates there obviously think the same thing. And, another opinion of mine, if there wasn't a term limit... Clinton would be President today. No question about it. Is that useful to the discussion, rimrocker? edit: put the a in "gave"... as in "gave a great speech" )
Amanpour: CNN practiced self-censorship CNN's top war correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, says that the press muzzled itself during the Iraq war. And, she says CNN "was intimidated" by the Bush administration and Fox News, which "put a climate of fear and self-censorship." As criticism of the war and its aftermath intensifies, Amanpour joins a chorus of journalists and pundits who charge that the media largely toed the Bush administrationline in covering the war and, by doing so, failed to aggressively question the motives behind the invasion. On last week's Topic A With Tina Brown on CNBC, Brown, the former Talk magazine editor, asked comedian Al Franken, former Pentagon spokeswoman Torie Clarke and Amanpour if "we in the media, as much as in the administration, drank the Kool-Aid when it came to the war." Said Amanpour: "I think the press was muzzled, and I think the press self-muzzled. I'm sorry to say, but certainly television and, perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News. And it did, in fact, put a climate of fear and self-censorship, in my view, in terms of the kind of broadcast work we did." Brown then asked Amanpour if there was any story during the war that she couldn't report. "It's not a question of couldn't do it, it's a question of tone," Amanpour said. "It's a question of being rigorous. It's really a question of really asking the questions. All of the entire body politic in my view, whether it's the administration, the intelligence, the journalists, whoever, did not ask enough questions, for instance, about weapons of mass destruction. I mean, it looks like this was disinformation at the highest levels." Clarke called the disinformation charge "categorically untrue" and added, "In my experience, a little over two years at the Pentagon, I never saw them (the media) holding back. I saw them reporting the good, the bad and the in between." Fox News spokeswoman Irena Briganti said of Amanpour's comments: "Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda." CNN had no comment. http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2003-09-14-media-mix_x.htm
So, what does that article about that CNN liberal w**** "self-censoring" prove? It proves that if they weren't so liberal, they wouldn't HAVE to self-censor. I guess Fox News doesn't have to do so, since they are simply "foot soldiers" for the admininistration. Gotcha. Point-set-match. Oh, and for all you liberals out there......Fox News has cleaned the ratings clocks of all the 24-hr networks and is now number one. Read it and weep.
bamaslammer, you really find this a professional comment by a reputable news organization? Truly? You're not just being a bit "over the top"? I find it appalling. If this were Britain, Amanpour could sue Fox for slander. I wish she could and would. Fox News spokeswoman Irena Briganti said of Amanpour's comments: "Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda."
I'm not sure whether to read your post as sarcastic and ironic, or if you *really* believe that. Either way, it's pretty funny. But I'm not going to dispute that Fox News is the undisputed king of network news. Pandering to scared white men is very lucrative.
I think it is not slanderous, because Amanpour is a public figure and she is an anti-American shill. Briganti hit it right on the head.
It's a good thing that there's only two ways to be perceived... foot-soldier or terrorist... makes those color-coded terrorist/patriot puzzles go so much faster.
yet another scoure that shows the mainstream media has let the right-winger off easy by ignoring important stories.. try to read it and educate yourself http://www.sfbg.com/37/50/cover_censored.html "Censored! Neocons' plans for global domination top the annual list of stories ignored or downplayed by the mainstream media." ok i think Ive quoted 3 solid sources to back up my claim that mainstream media is NOT liberal where are you sources or evidence to back up your claim ?
Friend, you really need to put away the crack pipe, liberal book of dogma and conspiracy theories in the rubbish bin where they belong. Your sources are not legit at all, if partisan sources are to be ignored. But of course, we can dance in this circular argument where you try to tell me that the media is conservative. I'm telling you I wish it was and pal, it is not. So get over it. The media favors you except for talk radio and Fox News. So whoop-de-damn. You don't hear me crying and whining about it like you are when you think in your paranoid, delusional, hedonistic, Al Franken-is-God liberal fantasy kingdom that the media is against your side. They are on your side, don't you get it! And about this so-called evidence, that is the biggest bunch of liberal, fantasy-land mularkey that I've ever wasted my time reading. It is so ridiculous to be laughable. For the media to cover that would be like them covering alien abductions and vampire sightings as real news. Quit watching Star Wars! Bush is not Palpatine (even though it would be nice....ha..ha..ha, especially the lightning from the fingertips deal). Get out of la-la land and come back to reality....please.
did you even read the link ? projectcensored.org is NOT a liberal organization just read through their lists of top ignored stories in the past.. but believe what you want to...
