Fox "News" is Crap

[volsforever27]

I'll add that if the Fairness Doctrine were to happen that it would be the death of talk radio. No one would listen to a liberal radio show, therefore there would be no advertising, and radio stations would simply pull the plug.

 

[lawgator1]

It's not that it's not okay for either side, it is the refusal to admit the bias that is the bigger issue. I believe the NYT portrays itself to be a news organization not an opinion organization. Conservative talk radio is not claiming to be an unbiased source of info.

This is precisely why the Fairness Doctrine is a load of crap. This action by the NYT flies in the face of the Fairness Doctrine but I doubt the supporters of the FD would see it that way.

I am increasingly annoyed by the NYT's bias and I'm a Democrat.

 

[TennNC]

You have your head deep in your 4th point of contact if you truly believe Obama is the charismatic messiah that the media is portraying. The guy has done nothing but spout change and speak. Obama had nowhere near the charisma that Clinton has and Obama has about 50% of the brainpower of Clinton, but Clinton got nowhere near this kind of media reception.

Further, if you don't think the networks do everything they legally can in supporting the hardest left candidate available, you just don't pay attention.

I'm not talking about a conspiracy. I'm talking about human nature. The indisputable fact is that the newsrooms of America vote 95%+ democratic. Human nature says that this crowd applies its worldview to its work. The folks that would hold them accountable for said bias are engaged in the same practice, so accountability doesn't exist.

I'm comfortable that you don't like black & white and believe that I don't have the capacity to understand the complexity of issues. That does nothing to change the bias that exists in our major media outlets. I'm not whining for Republicans because I believe they have natural advantages too, when they're not too busy trampling on them.

Why are networks leftists? How and why does that benefit them?

Why would they promote a leftist candidate, even if it hurt their ratings? Why would any business owner allow his/her employees to operate in a way that was destructive to the business?

 

[volsforever27]

Why are networks leftists? How and why does that benefit them?

Why would they promote a leftist candidate, even if it hurt their ratings? Why would any business owner allow his/her employees to operate in a way that was destructive to the business?

Because a) That's their views and b) they have been getting away with it since the days of Cronkite. That said, while it's still blatant, their numbers have dropped.

 

[TennNC]

It was purely McCain's lack of Charisma. You apparently have no idea how many papers Obama's editorial will help them sell going forward.

Is the NYT a TV network?

 

[BigPapaVol]

Is the NYT a TV network?

does this have something to do with Obama's overwhelming charisma and ability to sway people to action?

 

[BigPapaVol]

Why are networks leftists? How and why does that benefit them?

Why would they promote a leftist candidate, even if it hurt their ratings? Why would any business owner allow his/her employees to operate in a way that was destructive to the business?

It doesn't benefit them, besides the fact that it might help their party garner or retain power. Pretending that many don't see that as a huge benefit is just intellectually dishonest.

They promote a leftist candidate, a la Dan Rather, because, like me, they want the candidate to win who best promotes their views.

Until now, it has never hurt ratings for the Networks and huge newspapers to be blatantly biased. Even now, with the country evenly split, it really doesn't make an enormous difference which side they choose. A neutral news source would find significant support, especially with folks like me.

The destruction of the businesses is absolutely happening. The lefty shill news sources are seeing steady revenue declines. While much of that is attributable to other media availability, some of it is backlash against the hard lefty slant.

 

[lawgator1]

It doesn't benefit them, besides the fact that it might help their party garner or retain power. Pretending that many don't see that as a huge benefit is just intellectually dishonest.

They promote a leftist candidate, a la Dan Rather, because, like me, they want the candidate to win who best promotes their views.

Until now, it has never hurt ratings for the Networks and huge newspapers to be blatantly biased. Even now, with the country evenly split, it really doesn't make an enormous difference which side they choose. A neutral news source would find significant support, especially with folks like me.

The destruction of the businesses is absolutely happening. The lefty shill news sources are seeing steady revenue declines. While much of that is attributable to other media availability, some of it is backlash against the hard lefty slant.

Some of it, yes.

I give credit to the right for being much more savvy than the left about cable television production, the domination of drive-time talk radio, and use of the internet.

For one thing, the right has some talented and smart organizers. Murdoch comes to mind.

For another, the right finally realized that they would have a much better appeal to advertising dollars than the left ever would. If you want to get people to buy a new car or invest in some sort of securities, the people that listen to conservative talk radio are a prime target-rich environment.

 

[MG1968]

Well, you should feel really good when I tell you I've never been anything but a capitalist. In theory, every system sounds great. In practice, any system can get completely screwed up by human nature (greed, sloth, etc.) and needs to be kept in check. I think capitalism is the best, but of course it's not perfect.

I'm sure you and others see me as the second coming of Karl Marx, but in fact I work in perhaps one of the most capitalistic industries that exist. I guess I'm just not threatened by the word "government" like many on here seem to be.

then how can you support a candidate with such obvious socialist tendencies and policies? If you're a real capitalist, having the government in complete control of 1/7th of the US economy (healthcare) is a frightening and completely unacceptable notion.

Obama's desire to impose a WPT on oil companies and use that money to distribute to people to help with their gas costs is another obvious Marxist idea.

I don't think you're a Marxist, far from it, I just find your faith in Obama disturbing.

 

[volinbham]

I give credit to the right for being much more savvy than the left about cable television production, the domination of drive-time talk radio, and use of the internet.

I don't have data to back it up but my perception is that the left has a better foothold on the internet with sites such as Moveon, DailyKos, Huffington Post and Democratic Underground seemingly larger than any right leaning sites other than Drudge.

 

[T-TownVol]

I don't have data to back it up but my perception is that the left has a better foothold on the internet with sites such as Moveon, DailyKos, Huffington Post and Democratic Underground seemingly larger than any right leaning sites other than Drudge.

True that

 

[TennNC]

then how can you support a candidate with such obvious socialist tendencies and policies? If you're a real capitalist, having the government in complete control of 1/7th of the US economy (healthcare) is a frightening and completely unacceptable notion.

Obama's desire to impose a WPT on oil companies and use that money to distribute to people to help with their gas costs is another obvious Marxist idea.

I don't think you're a Marxist, far from it, I just find your faith in Obama disturbing.

My "faith in Obama." That's an interesting way to put it - makes sense if you want to paint me as a disciple and continue the Obama-messiah perception. FWIW, I don't think Obama's the second coming. I think he's a remarkable candidate with a whole lot of promise, and yes, definitely some risk - risk I'm willing to take.

I don't think an Obama administration will result in a Socialist society - if Obama's a socialist, then Bill Clinton was too. And despite the disdain many have for him, those years were just fine by me. I've stated my support for Obama in other threads. But bottom line, I'm all for a candidate who's smart and energetic and can appeal to a broad range of people (as stated in another thread started by Rasputin). And I happen to agree with him on more issues than not.

 

[TennNC]

It doesn't benefit them, besides the fact that it might help their party garner or retain power. Pretending that many don't see that as a huge benefit is just intellectually dishonest.

They promote a leftist candidate, a la Dan Rather, because, like me, they want the candidate to win who best promotes their views.

Until now, it has never hurt ratings for the Networks and huge newspapers to be blatantly biased. Even now, with the country evenly split, it really doesn't make an enormous difference which side they choose. A neutral news source would find significant support, especially with folks like me.

The destruction of the businesses is absolutely happening. The lefty shill news sources are seeing steady revenue declines. While much of that is attributable to other media availability, some of it is backlash against the hard lefty slant.

So you're saying that these enormous media conglomerates care more about which political party has more power than what their bottom line is?

I'd love to know where you get your news. It seems there's really nothing "neutral" in BPV's world. So how do you keep on top of things whilst avoiding this liberal propaganda?

 

[volinbham]

I don't think an Obama administration will result in a Socialist society - if Obama's a socialist, then Bill Clinton was too. And despite the disdain many have for him, those years were just fine by me. I've stated my support for Obama in other threads. But bottom line, I'm all for a candidate who's smart and energetic and can appeal to a broad range of people (as stated in another thread started by Rasputin). And I happen to agree with him on more issues than not.

I would disagree on the Clinton vs Obama agenda (Obama is decidedly more to the left) though I agree we won't become a Socialist society.

As for the Clinton years being just fine with you - I would say that personally, the Clinton and the Bush years were just fine with me. Both did things I disagree with terribly but personally, I did fine under both administrations.

 

[BigPapaVol]

So you're saying that these enormous media conglomerates care more about which political party has more power than what their bottom line is?

I'd love to know where you get your news. It seems there's really nothing "neutral" in BPV's world. So how do you keep on top of things whilst avoiding this liberal propaganda?

I don't know if you skipped what I wrote, but I said that until this point, it hasn't mattered to the bottom line that the lefty shills have been such. Only recently has th bias begun to make a financial difference, but many of the conglomerate types haven't transitioned with the times, hence the audiences are dwindling, leading to decreased revenues.

Your hyperbole doesn't help yor argument. I'm not calling it propaganda. I'm calling it news heavily slanted by a singular worldview. Sometimes its shamefully blatant and obvious, others its simply inability to help themselves.

I don't think there is a lot of neutral in our media today because taking the other side has proven massively beneficial for the few conservative media types out there. Once the vitriol gets old, there will be room for some neutrality.

I know you're concerned for me, but don't bother. I can handle most of it because I fully expect the lefty angle to be dominant and have learned to easily overcome the bias in reading it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[KB5252]

So you're saying that these enormous media conglomerates care more about which political party has more power than what their bottom line is?

I'd love to know where you get your news. It seems there's really nothing "neutral" in BPV's world. So how do you keep on top of things whilst avoiding this liberal propaganda?

At one time the media was better at exuding the impression of being neutral. It just seems to me that they have tended to let their emotions show through in their coverage over time. It seems to have really come to a boil over the past 10 years or so, todays reporters (print and tv) hardly seem to veil their political leanings these days.