I wish it were this easy.
- All Hat No Cattle
- Andy Borowitz
- Barry Deutsch
- Bearman Cartoons
- Beau of the Fifth Column
- Capitol Steps
- Cook Political Report
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos Comics
- Daily Show
- David Horsey
- Derf City
- Electoral Vote
- Fair and Unbalanced
- Fark Politics
- Five Thirty Eight Politics
- Funny or Die
- Funny Times
- Go Comics
- Heather Cox Richardson
- HuffPost Comedy
- John Fugelsang
- Kung Foo Monkey
- Last Week Tonight
- Margaret and Helen
- Mark Fiore
- Matt Davies
- Matt Wuerker
- McClatchy Cartoons
- News of the Weird
- O'Carl's Law
- Propaganda Professor
- Raging Pencils
- Randy Rainbow
- RCP Cartoons
- Saturday Night Live
- Stonekettle Station
- Ted Rall
- The Nib
- The Onion
- Tom the Dancing Bug
- Tom Toles
- USN Political Cartoons
- What Now Toons
Abortion Bush Campaign Finance Cheney Climate Clinton Congress Conservatives Corporations Corruption Deficits Democrats Drugs Economy Education Election Elections Energy Environment Fox News Gays Guns Health Immigration Lies McCain Media Middle East Obama Palin Protests Racism Religion Republicans Romney Spying Supreme Court Taxes Tea Party Terrorism Terrorists Torture Trump Unemployment War
You are Visitor #
That’s why you cannot, ever, never believe what you see on TV, newspapers and even online. (Sorry Political Irony)
People from BOTH sides of the political spectrum should adhere to this I think. Just because it’s on TV, doesn’t make it fair or true. It’s not balanced either. Fox, MSN, CNN, MSNBC whatever you watch. Glenn Beck? HA! He, along with all of them are, ready for this? Entertainers.
Yup. Just like dumb Charlie Sheen. They are on TV for one thing. Ratings. (Well, money really. Ratings = money) Ever see a show with low ratings? Nor have I. At least, not for long. What gets ratings? Fair and balanced banter? Or agreeing with your demographic and delivering one twos to the opposition?
I’m sure you know about propaganda. It is a hugely used tactic. Countries use it against countries they are at war against. People use it to gain points on elections over another politician. What exactly makes you think that your network is so honest and giving you the real deal? Because they say so? Because you agree? Of course you agree! They want your rating. So if they slip in some antagonizing comments here and there, some hate speech (not necessarily calling it so) people soak it up. Little by little. A bit more angry about this, a bit more hatred to the people that don’t like your ideas.
What I’m getting at, don’t people get tired of “THE LEFT THINKS THIS DAMNIT! WELL FUCK YOU THE RIGHT THINKS THIS! WELL YOU SUCK! NO, YOU SUCK!”
…Gives me a headache. Wouldn’t we make more progress working together? A little of this, little of that? Rather than pick sides and act oblivious to good ideas just because they come from our opposition? Rather than blindly agreeing with someone or something just because they declare yourself “on your side”?
Both Sides are nuts. I think we need a new side. One that believes that you over there have a good idea, and she over yonder has a good one too! Can we merge them and make it a great idea?
Anyone with me?
Hit the “Submit” by accident,
I meant to also add that isn’t a bit of skepticism and paranoia good when it comes to government? Seems to me 95% of all politicians nowadays are bought out long before they get to office. Corrupted by power, money and greed. Can anyone really trust any of them?
Anyone with me?
Interesting rant, NAME, but one thing disturbs me. The media has become so weighted to the right that FOX news, an extreme example of the problem, had no counter-weight. I have elected to follow left-wing commentators like Rachel Maddow as a counter-weight to the ideologues at FOX news that I personally feel have necome dangerous to us as a democracy.
The important difference here to your perspective is that not only do I “follow” Rachel Maddow, but I make the effort to look at a wide spectrum of thought before I make up my mind — and we all should do the same.
The single biggest problem in this country right now is that there is no respect for a reasoned, educated (and therefore) bi-partisan decision. The longer we keep fragmenting public (that is: common standards) education and live in our individual, self-created universes, the longer we are going to have the kind of divisions that you complain about.
I would advise all of us to consider the repercussions of each political dogma that we adopt against the larger goal of a cohesive social fabric for this country. If we don’t, we will become what the Middle East is. And that is the end of MY rant.
I see your point, but I don’t wish to see counter-weights to extreme left or right points of view. I understand balance in terms of what one may be bombarded against in the media, but balance in my view is bi-partisan debate and “idea making”. I agree that given what we have, one should always look at both sides and make their decision.
However, I feel that when I look at both sides, I see they are both nuts. I see good ideas from both parties and they fall to the wayside because the two are so caught up in disagreeing with each other and nothing is ever really accomplished except more dislike for each other.
More to your point, I see plenty of left sided agendas where I live. I see plenty of right too. It so happens I agree with the ideals of conservatism in terms of less government and more individual freedom and responsibility. No one but you can or should take responsibility for your life. I also agree with some liberal ideals such as having a more centralized health care system, but still keeping it a free-market because as history has shown, free-market works.
I think we would make more progress with a combination of the two; not way crazy left, way crazy right. You decide.
No apology needed, Name. I fully admit that I often use what some people might call propaganda techniques (although I prefer to call them rhetorical techniques). After all, using humor to make a point could be called a propaganda technique (just like using hate — like Fox News does — is a propaganda technique).
But the point I really agree with is that too much discussion has an “us v. them” attitude. To use a suddenly popular theme — all about “winning” rather than doing what’s necessary or best for the country. To too many politicians, it is all about winning elections, rather than governing. To too many people, it is all about “what’s in it for me” and screw the other guy or “why should I give up ANY of my hard earned money for them”. Or as you put it, picking sides. That’s what is called polarization.
What’s ironic about this is that when I was younger, people complained that there was not enough polarization, that our “winner take all” political system forced both parties toward the middle. But no longer — now both parties are pushed toward their extreme bases. Even though both parties are beholden to money and power, other than that there is no middle any more.
So yeah, I use propaganda techniques. But I use them to make fun of the extremes and to promote more rational discussions about what we should do as a country in order to live long and prosper.
@ Iron Knee
Not in defense of Fox (clearly I dislike just about all media, except for some talk radio) but you sure seem to have some sort of vendetta towards Fox.
Patricia, I agree with almost all of what you say except “The media has become so weighted to the right that FOX news, an extreme example of the problem, had no counter-weight” There always have been and are still today more liberal leaning democrat oriented media sites then conservative. Think about it, there is FOX on the right, then there is MSNBC, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc on the left. I think it’s more that FOX is the loudest and only source for the right, which may be why they have more viewership then the others. If it were reversed and there 5 or more right leaning media outlets and only one left leaning then that 1 left leaning voice would be pretty loud.
IK – you propaganda? Noooo. It occured to me when reading your post that along with FOX using techniques that lead to hate, so does the lefts contempt for say the tea party lead to hate. If you look at people like Anthony Weiner you can see his contempt, and yes almost hatred, for any opposition to his point of view. I’ve experienced it on this blog, people who are so opposed to any view but their own cannot possibly fathom that it’s OK to disagree and that there is more then one solution in many cases.
Name – I agree we need either a viable new party or as another solution splinter the existing ones. By that I mean break off the tea party from the republicans (who hijacked them any way), break off the pro-life, anti-gay, say no to union, far right and then break off the liberals and then the progressives from the democrats. Make 6 parties out of 2.
@Name: I don’t think IK has a “vendetta” against Fox News at all. I think he rightfully points out their hypocrisy and outright dishonest and partial (and politically motivated) reporting and bias.
As for your statements regarding politicians being “bought” before they even take office? I totally agree. Our political system not only allows legalized bribery, it encourages it. The Citizens United ruling last year solidified and exacerbated the problem.
Tracy Ullman was on Bill Maher’s show this past Friday and she made a point that really should have been expounded upon. Her daughter ran for some office in England, where Ullman is from. The process from start to finish, from the point of filing the paperwork and paying the fee to election day was a few weeks, and there was no advertising. No campaign contributions. No one to whom she was beholden, if she’d been elected (she lost by 19 votes).
*In a dream-like state* Could you imagine? Politics free from corruption, greed and contributions from the private-sector? *Angels singing*
Unfortunately, our political system strongly favors two parties and discourages any new parties that I don’t think it would be possible to break up the existing parties. More likely is a group like “No Labels” that is trying to get away from the idea of competitive parties. Jason Ray has talked about them, or you can visit their website http://nolabels.org
And by the way, anyone who thinks that media in this country is liberal leaning is delusional. That lie has been debunked so many times it isn’t even funny anymore. Even NPR has been shown to give more air time to conservatives than to liberals.
I’ll stop making fun of Fox News when they stop lying. Fox News even admitted in court that they lie, but won the case by asserting that it is their right to lie. See https://www.politicalirony.com/2010/09/18/hypocritical-fox-news/
Fox, much like any other station (only to a higher degree) has pretty much always upped the anti when it comes to being out-there. This is a brilliant tactic because it boosts ratings. They found a loophole and capitalized on it. If they weren’t outrageous, people wouldn’t be talking about them more than other channel. Like they say, any publicity is good publicity.
As far as the milk is concerned, have you heard about the EPA designating milk as an oil and such spills have to be treated as an oil spill?
This is what I’m talking about when I say less government infringement on it’s citizens. Lets reduce that to just “less government”. This is what your tax dollars fund in a time of deficits and debts.
Except, that story (about milk spills) is false. See http://mediamatters.org/blog/201103070020
This is what I’m talking about when I say that Fox News (and its now sister publication the Wall Street Journal, also owned by News Corp) lies. Not only do they lie, but when a correction is sent to them, they don’t bother to print it. And then people like you believe it. Very sad.
@Name: Before you post “milk is oil” statements, it might behoove you to do some research. The EPA had PROPOSED treating large scale milk spills in a similar fashion as oil because of the high fat content. However, the EPA has stated it will NOT be doing this.
And Fox News is not merely “out-there”. Fox News has repeatedly lied, shown graphs with results reversed (another form of lying), identified Republicans as Democrats when they’ve done something bad (also lying), etc.
Google is your friend. Use it.
I visited No Labels when Jason Ray had posted about it before his trip to DC. I liked what I saw and like you IK hope it doesn’t get hijacked, by any side.
Sammy – Bing baby Bing.
NAME: Suggestion for you which is what I did in 1962. Turn off the television. there is no television in this house. I am always so happy when elections come around and listen to people complain of the constant ads that I don’t see. I read books about the candidate, the situation, etc.
I read AP RAW news which has all the stories with references. I then read the books suggested. They are biased so I read another. I wanted to find out what happened to our country during to Bush administration to ruin my grandchildren’s future so I read about Bush (I’d already read her mother’s books and realized he isn’t one of her favorites) I read about Rice. I’d already read about Powell. I read about Cheney. I read Scott McClellen’s book. I kept on going. Bush too ignorant. Wasn’t Cheney. I kept going until I realized it was Karl Rove. He spreads the e-mail lies, he now works for Fox News and tells them how to slant news (lie). He has addenda in life “Concentrate the wealth of this country in the top 5% of this country. Castrate the Unions” Take away the “rights” we middle class have fought for so long. He has no social conscience. Bush was easily led. Rove led him. Karl Rove has mentors and followers. Find out about them. None of these people are educated. Rove/Beck/Cheney/ etc. He knows how to achieve hate and sits back and loves it.
If you don’t watch television, you can learn about this country. If you do watch television, you can’t.
I won’t throw out my TV – . I can find enough good on it to avoid the bad. Plus, I love sports. 🙂
EBD: Your statement is exactly what I meant in my comment: non-biased self-education. I also go to news feeds rather than rely on some news caster’s reinterpretations of the news. They aren’t always deliberately inaccurate, but have time and content constraints and don’t always edit carefully.
PSGT: You say “Think about it, there is FOX on the right, then there is MSNBC, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc on the left.” (Thank you IK for the bias reports.) CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC certainly don’t lean to the left and even NPR is judicious about left-leaning subjects.
I think the reason that this blog (and myself) come out hard against Fox, is because they are really so much more extreme than any other network. Compared to Fox, Reagan is a liberal.
Personally, I like Jon Stewart, but he definitely gets understandably biased when you talk about his mom (ie, teachers).
Bias is ok. I don’t mind that Fox News has a bias. Everyone has a bias, even if they pretend they don’t. Jon Stewart has a bias. I have a bias. That seems obvious to me.
What I don’t like about Fox News is that they lie, and they lie deliberately and repeatedly, even when the real truth is known. Their slogan “fair and balanced” is a lie. Even Fox News supporters say that Fox is right-wing, yet they still don’t seem to mind Fox claiming to be balanced. Are they immune to cognitive dissonance?
Yup, everyone has a bias, even myself. However, I attempt (sometimes unsuccessfully) to look beyond it and stick to fact-based arguements.
I used to think that “News” at least *tried* to avoid bias in their reporting, but this doesn’t even seem to be a desirable goal anymore. As Name said, it is all about the ratings and money.
Don’t people read the entire postings? Or just go to the last one, read it and comment?
I’m not in defense of Fox. I don’t like TV media outlets. *Haven’t I said this once before? I feel like I have to repeat myself all the time.*
To Ebdoug: READ my posts before you talk. It makes you look dumb. I don’t like media. I don’t like government. As far as books are concerned did you read Obama’s? I sure did and they didn’t make me feel any better about him as our president. Same goes for Bush, Clinton and so on.
There are a few people on this site, who see something, and react. You need to slow down, read everything and then react. That is *^EXACTLY^* what my original post was about. Not enough emphasis on the word EXACTLY. Go to the top and see for yourself.
As far as the milk story, I hope it is false. God do I hope it is. Last I heard about the story (not on Goddamn Fox people only show I watch on Fox is reruns of Seinfeld). No one here can admit that stupid stuff like this does happen and taxpayer money goes towards it.
Stop being so damn literal.
Ignore the NAME umm two point o, I was sarcastically writing back to myself on another topic on Banks and forgot to get rid of it.
Ok, I promise to not take anything Name says literally ever again.
And I shall do the same for Iron Knee
NAME, I’ve read all three of Obama’s published books. I’m working my way through those published about Obama. I want to hear what his insiders say about him.
Man, y’all should rent some paint ball guns and go have some real fun.
Sammy – i’m with you. I wont give up my NatGeo, History Channel, HGTV or DIY, or Science channel without a fight. Literally.
I’m sorry, I’m unable to paintball Name literally, I would have to paint him figuratively.
@ Iron Knee
I’ll “paintball” you for real don’t worry.
Look, I don’t want to create an enemy here. I like this site, and I find the opinions and topics fun and interesting. But from now on, understand this about me.
I don’t “take sides” on political issues. I stay bi-partisan. I listen, I read and then I decide. Many topics I feel are no-brainers or just common sense. I guess you could put me in the common sense party if it existed. If it sounds good, seems like it works, I’m for it. If it is a waste of time and money, I don’t like it.
To EBDOUG, I haven’t yet gone into books published about Obama. I’m excited to do so though. Seeing an inside perspective would be interesting and informative. I’ve already made my mind up about politicians. Nothing I read or discover will change that. I use a method for this which really works, you have to be able to read a person’s personality however. I don’t look at a person’s politics, their voting records, their support and oppose points and I certainly don’t base my opinions (thereby my vote) on media’s take on someone. Nor anyone else. I do this because it allows me to stay balanced. I don’t feed into propaganda fed to us by any media outlet. That skews people’s opinions.
My first impression of Obama is puppet. He can read his ass off. He can deliver a speech like few I’ve seen. My real concern is who is he a puppet for? Without a script he is hugely unimpressive. Listen to some of his banter about baseball and other random topics. He isn’t nearly as eloquent or diverse or decisive.
I don’t want to make this too terribly long, although it already it, but if you want my impression on any other politicians I will gladly share. I don’t want it to look like I’m picking on anyone, because some people are very literal and may think “why did he only pick that person?”.
Patriot: The History Channel now has a show hosted by Larry the Cable Guy. All other programming is Hitler-oriented. I’m kinda done with them. 😉
@Name: Who do you suppose, in your bi-partisan theory, is the puppet master?
Master Of Puppets? I don’t know. That is my question.
Seems to me all politicians are puppets really. Puppets to contributors of their campaigns, oil companies, unions, private sector employers, tobacco, you name it.
And yeah, I completely agree about the History Channel. Their business model seems to be “If it isn’t WWII or maybe WWI then we cannot guarantee airtime.
Don’t worry, Name, you aren’t in any danger of creating enemies. I’m sorry if my teasing has led to defensiveness. Your opinions are welcome here — this site would be absolutely boring without a wide range of opinions.
I think the reason I’ve been teasing you is that, my some miracle of coincidence, the opinions you have formed on your own have an uncanny similarity to major Republican talking points.
Let’s just take one example. You say that Obama seems like a puppet to you. Your evidence includes statements like “Without a script he is hugely unimpressive”. The whole “Obama is only impressive with a teleprompter” is a Republican meme. I have seen Obama give plenty of talks without a script (or teleprompter) and been very impressed. Even when using a script, he writes a large part of his own speeches. Seriously, I’m not worried about how he sounds talking about baseball; I’m tired of presidents that people vote for because they “want to have a beer with them” — that got us Dubya. You also complain about Obama not sounding decisive. One of the few things that Dubya had going for him was that he *sounded* decisive — “Mission Accomplished” sounds real decisive, and going into Iraq with guns blazing is very decisive — but we all saw where acting like a cowboy got us as a nation. I for one like the fact that Obama considers the issues before he responds.
I hope you realize that the “personality” you see of *any* politician is carefully scripted and produced, like an entertainment program. It is no coincidence that Reagan was an actor, who was supremely good at talking to a television camera.
It is also concerning that when you see some story, like the EPA milk spill one, that reinforces your existing beliefs, you jump on it without taking the 5 seconds it took me to search and find out that story was false. It also concerns me that you brush off that faux pas, telling us to not take you literally.
Finally, the problem with the “common sense” party is that there is much in this world that defies common sense. For example, pretty much all of modern physics, including relativity and especially quantum mechanics, makes absolutely no common sense at all. And yet transistors were developed because of our understanding of quantum physics, and led to the computers and electronics we all love.
Instead of always using common sense, it is better to actually look at real results. For example, common sense tells us that if traffic is bad then we should build more freeways, but the real result of that policy in Los Angeles and other cities shows that it doesn’t work that way at all (urban freeways encourage more sprawl, which makes traffic worse). If the “common sense” party says that there is no way we evolved from apes, that global climate change is a myth because it still snows, or that less government regulation is *always* better, then it is a party to which I don’t want to belong.
OK, fair points. Perhaps my examples do sound “republicanish” but I want to stress that in no way shape or form are my opinions sculpted by republicans.
What I was referring to about Obama’s baseball reference is not what he was saying. Not what he was talking about. I personally don’t care about baseball. I don’t care if he does or doesn’t. I was listening to HOW he was saying it, HOW he was “answering” the questions.
Go over to youtube and watch some videos on this. In particular, watch this one.
Now, I don’t know if the teleprompter REALLY went out, that’s just the title. But he seemed on a roll, then… nothing. Blames lack of sleep, and says to the crowd he can’t hear himself think over their talking, even though they seemed polite and pretty quite. There are quite a few of these videos, where he just stumbles about, lost for words.
This worries me to no end. Is he overseas, (representing our country) stuttering and mumbling like he does in these videos?
What of the 57 States comment? That wasn’t a slip up either. He says Fiftyyyyy? Sssssseven states. With one left to go. HUH?
I think he is a puppet. These videos are my evidence and NO one here can contend this. I understand public speaking is tough, no question about it. Very unnerving and sometimes outright scary. But the President of the Free World should be over that don’t you think? Go into a room, OWN THAT ROOM and instantly gain the respect of everyone there. That’s a president. It’s an act sure. It’s scripted word, spoken with heart and spoken deliberately. That’s what they call it COMMANDER in Chief. You have to be Commanding. Never do I feel with Obama, “Wow, that really motivated me.” I feel I’m always left going, huh?
I’m pretty sure if MLK Jr.’s, JFK’s, Gehrig’s, even Patton’s movie speech was filled with Umms and Ahhs it wouldn’t have been remembered.
The milk story was written incorrectly, I apologize. It’s difficult to convey certain emotions in writing especially when you get going. My intentions were “Did you hear…” like, “Hey did you hear Mr. John down the street is moving?” I’ll admit it was a bad example, but one also admit that tax money IS wasted on crap similar to this all the time.
Common Sense isn’t build more roads because there is traffic. Common Sense is “Wow, a lot of traffic. Everyone must be going the same way to work.”
Remember, common sense isn’t so common.
I’m concerned by very vague, ambiguous, nebulous and undefined statements like, “Obama seems to be a puppet” without any evidence, other than supposition or gut feeling, to back it up.
If I say John McCain has shifted from a moderate conservative to a very conservative senator, it’s easy to find examples of such (like his abandonment of McCain-Feingold to backing the Citizens United ruling). I can Google (or Bing) search for Michele Bachmann quotes (taken IN context) to prove she’s a bit off her rocker.
And the one thing I’ve learned about this site is that you don’t get a pass when making statements of “fact”. It takes about 5 seconds to get a response saying, “Back up your statement with a link.”
Name: Regarding the teleprompter going out incident, do you know how many prepared speeches a president gives? Do you seriously believe he is going to memorize each one. If you’re giving a speech from any prepared source and the pages get switched, it’s going to mess up your train of thought.
I sing in a band and write the lyrics to the songs I sing. I sing them over and over and over in rehearsals. If they’re new songs, I read them all day long before a show. And you know what happens if a line escapes me during a show (and it happens all too often)? I falter and try to make something up on the spot. The difference between that and a presidential speech? I’m in room with 120 decibels of guitars, bass and drums to hide my mistake and a much smaller audience to notice, not a stage with all eyes and ears trained on my words.
As for the 57 states thing, do you really believe he didn’t know there are 50 states or that it’s some weird Islamic conspiracy? Words come out of my mouth that are absolute gibberish. Wires get crossed from brain-to-mouth. It happens. When you’re president you’re on video 100% of the time when it happens.
Name, thanks for the link to that video, but I guess I had a different reaction to it. We could only hear the audio from his microphone, and it is pretty clear from the video that the audience was pretty worked up and some people were yelling (you could barely hear them on this video, but I’m sure it would have been much louder if you were there in person). Given that, I didn’t find Obama’s reaction that strange.
I used to do quite a bit of public speaking, and got quite good at it. But (like Sammy says) I’m sure you could put together a video of my stumbles and make me look like a complete puppet or idiot. I’m sure you could do the same thing for MLK Jr. or even Abraham Lincoln.
You’ll notice that I don’t post a lot of stories here about people making minor stupid mistakes while speaking. I didn’t jump on Huckabee when he claimed that Obama grew up in Kenya (even though he repeated his mistake). That’s just a simple goof-up, and everybody does that. But when Huckabee condemned Natalie Portman for being a single mom — a complete flip-flop from the way he reacted to Bristol Palin’s pregnancy — that’s hypocrisy.
Speaking of presidents and fumbling speech — this is hilarious.
Sammy – I don’t know what they were thinking with Larry TCG. But I did watch alittle and he delved into some unique seldom covered subjects. I do like the pawn stars and american pickers series from time to time.
On Obama and his ability to speak. I don’t know what Presidents did before the invention of the teleprompter but it’s now the standard and here to stay. The speach he wrote for the memorial service for those killed in AZ was perhaps his best speech, ever. The kicker is aids said his speech writers wrote a version and he tossed it, locked himself away and wrote the one he delivered without the benefit of their editing. I think sometimes our leaders speeches get to edited with someone elses thoughts to allow their true feelings and passion to show through. From personal experience I am a much better speaker when its my materiel and something I believe in. That speech showed me that Obama is a man who can care deeply and believes in community and the great spirit of humanity that exists in this country. up until then a rarely gave him any free pass, now in my book only he’s earned some.
NAME – I too would caution against focusing on “how” someone presents themselves over “what” they actually say. Form is the easiest way to sideline substance. This is why news-tainment is the fraud that you pointed to.
With that said, I am also a bit skeptical that you are as immune from the Republican propaganda machine as you would like to think you are. Your first post ranted about the entertainment tone in the major cable news networks. But when you argued about your lack of trust in the President, you focus primarily on his presentation skills. This is a wee bit contradictory to me. If the entertainment flavor of the cable news channels is wrong because of lack of substance, then I would expect that you would focus more on the President’s message rather than on the fact that he incorrectly stated that there were 57 states (which for all we know, could have been the result of reading reports that include the 6 populated US territories plus the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base with the 50 US states).
Anyway, just a long way of saying that, while you might genuinely want to be an independent thinker, you haven’t really demonstrated that you are. Making the assertion that Fox is as biased as the rest of them is insufficient, in my view.
That’s not to say that I doubt that you want to be an independent thinker. I get the sense that you just might. But it doesn’t help when you attack people for challenging you, as you did when EBDoug suggested that you turn off the TV. Again, you contradicted yourself in your response. Regardless of whether you “like” TV media or media generally, you clearly do watch TV, otherwise you wouldn’t have made such a powerful rant in your first post.
This community is great exactly because people challenge what you say and force you to support what you say. And if you were the independent thinker that you claim to be, you would be anticipating these things anyway before you make claims about the EPA regulating milk spills. In case you didn’t bother to go to the link provided, the EPA’s actual action was to exempt milk containers from federal laws directing EPA to develop regulations and programs to prevent oil spills. I personally don’t expect you to know or understand that there are non-petroleum oils that do pose significant hazards to the public’s health and the environment, which is why the law could be written to include high fat content milk. I do expect that an independent thinker will look to more than one source of information (the original of which is clearly a biased source) before making an argument that turns out not only to be wrong, but the truth of which entirely negates the larger argument about an overreaching government. In short, before arguing about something, check into a bit more, otherwise the credibility of your entire argument may just vaporize right before your eyes.
OK, now it’s late. I’ve got to get to bed.
“There always have been and are still today more liberal leaning democrat oriented media sites then conservative.”
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha… Oh wait, you were serious.
MSNBC, which is widely considered the most left-leaning of the three cable news channels, has Joe Scarborough on for three hours every weekday.
JOE SCARBOROUGH IS A FORMER REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN.
This is what’s wrong with the political debate in the United States. Fox News has turned the political debate so far to the right that anything that’s merely right-leaning is considered leftist.
@ Iron Knee. HAHAHA Your comeback with Dubya is hilarious.
I know you can spin almost anything. I know you can make it look like whatever you wish. However, I’ve seen real public speakers, without script going on improv and they were remarkable. You giving me this Bush video doesn’t really disprove my point I think. I mean if I give you someone being stupid, you shouldn’t retort with just an idiot. Obama is, in my opinion a very smart guy. Perhaps he cannot convey that through some speeches, which is a fault that a president (in my high regards to presidency) should have worked out loooong before even considering campaigning.
Sammy: He has the most important job in the world. YES he should memorize EVERY last punctuation, coffee stain and staple orientation in the paper that speech is written in. It isn’t hard either. I’ve memorized plenty of speeches in my time. If I cannot memorize the entire thing, I remember talking points and big issues which I wish to convey and convince the audience. I also think that teleprompters aren’t helping speech-givers today. Emphasis should be on being able to improvise and know WHAT you are trying to say and just elaborating on that point. I’ll happily give you a lesson on improvisation.
As a side, what does your band play mainly? I’m in one too 🙂 Best decision a person can make I think, learning how to create music.
C.S.Strowbridge – I’m actually a somewhat regular viewer of Morning Joe. He’s about as center right as I am left center. I enjoy that he sits next to his much farther left co host regular contributers, because he doesn’t give them a free pass. He is also just as critical of republicans. So I agree on that point. Do you know all the contributers to FOX news? Is it possible any of them are liberals? I’ll let you think about it. I still disagree with the notion that the media leans right, I just think its louder. There is FOX on the right, is there another? I can think of many examples of left media outlets, but for the right I only know of one. If you want to see both sides of a story there are many places to tune into the left view, but only one for the right view, unless you can provide some examples I can check out.
I think you are best doing your research online. There are plenty of left/right sites out there. And some actually balanced ones. Google is your friend. Just remember that whatever you read or see, you’ve gotta take it with a grain of salt. Most media outlets only report what furthers their agenda. That agenda, for media, is money. I don’t really know if any station actually gives a crap about this country, so long as their pockets are full.
“He is also just as critical of republicans.”
51% of likely voters in the Republicans primaries believe Obama was not born in the United States. The Republican base has gone so far to the right that they’ve entered bat shit insane territory. Reagan is far left compared to the average Republican today.
If your measuring stick of left wing / right wing is being critical of Republicans, then everyone should be left wing.
On the other hand, every single network out there has been critical of Obama. Even passionately liberal commentators like Rachel Maddow or Cenk Uyger have complained. So what does that make them?
“There is FOX on the right, is there another?”
MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, even NPR give right-wingers more air time than left wingers.
“I can think of many examples of left media outlets, but for the right I only know of one.”
No you can’t, but that’s because You have been brain-washed into thinking that.
You can’t judge how biased the news media is, because they match your own biases.
“…critical of republicans” equals left winger. Unbelievable.
Staple orientation? That is funny.
CSS – You said “…critical of republicans” equals left winger, not me.
Are you seriously suggesting that MSNBC gives more air time to conservatives and is more right then left? You got to stop drinking the koolaid CSS.
And after your complete rant you still have not provided 1 example of a mainstream rightwing media source other then FOX. Obviously, it’s because you can’t or they don’t exist. All you can manage to do is affix labels and spout typical I’m so smart and you don’t get it nonsense.
From the brainwashed, bat shit biased and unbelievably unknowing, have a lovely day.
@Name: My band is melodic heavy rock band.
One of the oldest mainstream right wing media sources is National Review. It’s been around for over 55 years.
In addition, Weekly Standard (also part of Murdoch’s media empire). And WorldNetDaily.
I can also name a few conservative newspapers: Boston Herald, Washington Times, New York Post, Wall Street Journal’s editorial page (the news in WSJ is actually pretty good).
Other magazines that I almost forgot: Reason Magazine, American Spectator, and City Journal.
Locally, there will also be AM and FM conservative stations.
Those are the right wing mainstream media sources that most immediately come to mind.
PatriotSGT: “I’m actually a somewhat regular viewer of Morning Joe. He’s about as center right as I am left center. I enjoy that he sits next to his much farther left co host regular contributers, because he doesn’t give them a free pass. He is also just as critical of republicans.”
Yes, you did say, “critical of Republicans” = equals Left of center, you just used different words.
You see, words have meanings, ones you can’t change when you find them inconvenient. You tried to claim Scarborough is left wing, just not as left wing as his co-host. One of the pieces of evidence you used was he was “critical of Republicans”.
“Are you seriously suggesting that MSNBC gives more air time to conservatives and is more right then left?”
Yes. In fact, there have been studies done that prove it, as Iron Knee pointed out. See, I have facts on my side.
“And after your complete rant you still have not provided 1 example of a mainstream rightwing media source other then FOX.”
All of them. I’ve already said that.
Recent example. Rumsfeld took a Q&A and one of the questions was about WMD in Iraq. Rumsfeld claimed he never said he knew where the WMD were. That’s a lie. On every mainstream network the big story was, ‘Did the guy who asked the question have a axe to grind.’ That was absolutely the right-wing position. Hell, it’s so far beyond right-wing it’s in crazyland. We have video proof that Rumsfeld lied. That fact was ignored by nearly everyone in mainstream news. Bringing up that fact wouldn’t make them left-wing, but it would be accurate and balanced. Ignoring that fact makes them hard-right.
You are just such a completely brainwashed idiot you don’t recognized what is right-wing any more.
A completely unbiased and fair reporting of the political system in the United States would go like this…
Democrats: Working too closely with Wall Street and corporations at the expense of the American People.
Republicans: Wholly owned by corporations and bat shit insane to boot.
You seem to think that anyone who doesn’t support the Republicans craziness is some how a left-wing organization, even if they give more air time to conservatives overall.
And you still haven’t told me what Rachel Maddow is? She’s complained about Democrats in the past, does that make her a right-winger? Same thing with Cenk Ugyer.
On a side note, even Anne Coulter admits the media is right-wing. She said calling the media liberal for the last three decades was an attempt to ‘play the officials’ to use sports talk, and she admits it worked.
@Name: I do find the notion that a president, due to his importance, should have every word and piece of punctuation memorized, especially given that a president gives several dozen speeches (or more)a year, quite ludicrous. This notion that teleprompters are an issue was never an issue until…oh wait, 2008. It is yet another in a long list (and growing) of nitpicks of Obama that are pointless and designed to do nothing more than generate more baseless hatred for the man. It’s like the many photos and captions of Michelle Obama I’ve seen that portend to show that she has no class, especially compared to Laura Bush. It’s really just more (often racist) bullshit.
CSS – 1st, good conversation. 2nd I havn’t watched any FOX contributer in months because I can’t stomach it. But I equally can’t stand little Rachels who have to smirk and roll their eyes and do all the facial gyrations because they haven’t moved past school kid mode. I’m also a democrat who votes for the best person for the job. Many times thats a democrat, but sometimes its a republican or independent. What I can’t stand about people like you is when you can’t come up with anything meaningful and must resort to saying things like “You are just such a completely brainwashed idiot you don’t recognized what is right-wing any more.”
This particular idiot does recognize brainwashing and sees it has befallen you. You can’t even argue without resorting to name calling.
I fully agree that elements of the right and mostly right media are out there. But, some of them and yes even some on faux news as the cutsy liberals likes to call it, are not way out there and provide acurate information. I can’t watch Beck, nor could I watch Olberman. I can’t watch Hannity, nor can I watch Odonnel or Schultz. I can tolerate Oreilly, because he reminds me of my brother, about as much as I can tolerate Maddow. Thats just the way it is, you don’t have to like it or try to change it, just accept thats me and move on.
Starluna – all correct. I was “unclearly” referring to TV/network type media outlets. I routinely have to tune out Rush, and Hannity on the radio. I admittedly don’t have time for print media, and the only ones near me are the Baltimore Sun and Wash Post which are left leaning, but are ones I read when time permits. Thanks for the usual civility! 🙂
and to be perfectly clear, I did NOT imply that this issue, nor you (Name), are racist.
Better be careful Sarge, or you’re gonna be found out to be the RINO that you are. 😉
SGT: “What I can’t stand about people like you is when you can’t come up with anything meaningful and must resort to saying things like ‘You are just such a completely brainwashed idiot you don’t recognized what is right-wing any more.'”
What if it fits?
And I’m 100% serious.
There are studies that show every mainstream news organization, INCLUDING NPR, give more time to right-wingers than to left-wingers. Yet you claim only Fox News is on the right.
How else can I explain that other than you have been brainwashed? And guess what? I even have quotes from people doing the brainwashing.
Commentators on MSNBC gave money to Republicans and nothing happened. Keith Obermann gave money to Democrats and he was suspended. Do you still think MSNBC is a left-wing news organization?
How much evidence do I have to give before I give up and just insult you?
And I have given evidence, despite the number of times you’ve lied to the contrary.
“This particular idiot does recognize brainwashing and sees it has befallen you. You can’t even argue without resorting to name calling.”
Person 1.) “Two plus two equals five.”
Person 2.) “No it doesn’t.”
Person 1.) “Two plus two equals five.”
Person 2.) “Seriously, it doesn’t. Look, here’s a math textbook.”
Person 1.) “Two plus two equals five.”
Person 2.) “Are you an idiot? You are wrong.”
Person 1.) “You can’t even argue without resorting to name calling.”
You have yet to address the fact that even NPR gives more air time to right-wingers than to left-wingers, nor have you addressed the fact that Rachel Maddow, Cenk Ugyr, etc. have complained about Democrats.
In fact, I don’t think you’ve given a single fact in this debate. You’ve complained about Rachel Maddow’s delivery style, as if that makes her the same as Glenn Beck and his crazy conspiracy theories and his outright lies. Style over substance is a logical fallacy for a reason.
LOL @ CSS – you complain about me not giving facts, seriously. Can you name one fact you have given me other then everybody knows or because so n so said so? Show me the data then I’ll consider it.
“There are studies” ok, where?
“Commentators on MSNBC gave money to Republicans and nothing happened. Keith Obermann gave money to Democrats and he was suspended. Do you still think MSNBC is a left-wing news organization?” Emphatically YES, they wanted to get rid of Olberman anyway.
“You have yet to address the fact that even NPR gives more air time to right-wingers than to left-wingers” What fact, where is that data, or is it another case of because you said so?
“How much evidence do I have to give” If the above is what you call evidence, don’t become a lawyer or law enforcement, it wouldn’t be a great career choice for you.
fact that Rachel Maddow, Cenk Ugyr, etc. have complained about Democrats. So if Beck or Hannity or Oreilly have complained about republicans (which they have) that makes them Liberal media? Come on, where is your critical thinking?
So, EBDoug, what were you saying about watching less TV?
Our TV is on the first floor. It happens to be the second coldest room in the house. So, we haven’t been in there much since November. It was an unintentional, but quiet effective, strategy for watching less TV. We still need the TV because we need to screen documentaries that we use in the classroom. And we’re big Masterpiece Mystery fans.
Starluna – you made me bust out laughing. I guess enough is enough, but I was having so much fun.
Sorry CSS, I think you are weakening your arguments by resorting to name calling.
I agree that people can have their opinions manipulated dramatically without knowing that they are being manipulated. But saying they are “brainwashed” doesn’t help.
Maybe it will help if we take a different tack on this. I think it is pointless to argue about whether the media (in general) is right or left wing. After all, left and right are such crude terms, and are relative anyway — to PSGT, MSNBC might seem to the left, and that is his view. I also understand how some liberal commentators can appear just as strident and grating as those on the left.
What I think is far more important is whether a news organization makes an honest effort to tell the truth: whether they fact check the information they broadcast, whether they will present information that goes against their agenda, and whether they correct their mistakes.
Most corporate-owned media are just spokespeople for the corporations. Even so, some do a better job of actually presenting news truthfully than others. I think there is plenty of evidence that Fox News is NINO (News in Name Only).
So rather than the challenge to name a news outlet on the right other than Fox News, I would respond by asking if anyone can name a news outlet (TV, print, radio, whatever) on the right that doesn’t systematically lie and deceive people.
As for PSgt, if he does listen to O’Reilly, I highly recommend “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them“. An enjoyable read, and fully documented and substantiated.
“fact that Rachel Maddow, Cenk Ugyr, etc. have complained about Democrats. So if Beck or Hannity or Oreilly have complained about republicans (which they have) that makes them Liberal media? Come on, where is your critical thinking?”
That’s your fucking critical thinking, asshole. YOU are the one that brought up Joe Scarborough complaining about Republicans, as if that made him non a right-winger. Jesus fucking Christ.
Is this your plan? Act like an ignorant asshole till someone snaps at you then claim you’ve won because the other person insulted you?
By the way…
2 to 1.
I’d give you more, but I don’t think you have the brains to debate reality.
“Sorry CSS, I think you are weakening your arguments by resorting to name calling.”
But look at what I’m dealing with.
Joe Scarborough is a Republican. Not someone who supports Republicans. Not a registered Republican. But a former Republican member of congress. Joe Scarborough has a three-hour block on MSNBC that’s named after him. Yet because Joe Scarborough doesn’t toe the Republican party line 100% of the time, PatriotSGT doesn’t consider him a right-winger.
That’s stupid. Calling PatriotSGT brainwashed is being polite.
When I point out Rachel Maddow doesn’t toe the Democratic Party Line either, PatriotSGT calls me stupid, even though it’s his argument.
I’m more than willing to debate people on the facts, but if they are going to say stupid things, I’m going to call them stupid.
If PatriotSGT doesn’t want to be called stupid, he should stop saying stupid things.
Iron Knee wrote: “Sigh.”
If there’s something wrong with my logic, I would love to hear it. Seriously.
I visited your link and I totally get it now. Thinkprogress the home court of progressives. It’s that group who latched onto the Democratic party because they don’t have enough people to form their own party.
First of all, your omnipotent source was written in 2009 and quotes data from a 3 day period in January 2009. So, I guess yours and their reasoning is “it was true for 3 days in January 2009, therfore it must always be true” and anyone who doesn’t immediatley take this as the absolute truth for all time must be an idiot.
Yeah, I totally get it.
Well I think we’ve wasted enough disk space on IK’s server and this will obviously never get resolved so I say we agree to disagree and call it a day. You gotta know I do agree with your point of view on other issues, especially about money in politics.
IK – to your point, Canada has a national law that prohibits news organizations from broadcasting false or misleading news. In an attempt to change the regulation in a way that might allow false or misleading news, the agency in charge of this received more than 3000 letters, most opposed to it and citing Fox as something they did not want in Canada.
Geez CSS, PatriotSgt usually presents a point of view that’s to the right (but usually only slightly) of others here, but he’s always respectful and will admit error when proven wrong. He brings a nice balanced perspective to this forum. Why resort to f-bombs and calling him an a-hole? Don’t be the guy who right wingers use to prove their point about lefties being as bad as righties.
“…but he’s always respectful and will admit error when proven wrong.”
Really? Cause I’ve seen otherwise.
He’s equated Rachel Maddow and Glenn Beck on a number of occasions. Glenn Beck joked about killed Nancy Pelosi on TV and fantasized about killing Michael Moore on his radio show. What did Rachel Maddow do? She smirks.
When given a link that shows right-wingers are given more air time than left-wingers, even on MSNCB, what did he do? He attacked the source. What counter-evidence has he given? NOTHING.
When presented with the FACT that Joe Scarborough is a Republican and is on MSNBC for three hours a day, he says it doesn’t count because Joe sometimes disagrees with Republicans. When I point out Rachel Maddow disagrees with Democrats, he insults me, even though I was just showing how flawed his reasoning is.
He will never admit he’s wrong on this one. He refuses to give any evidence. He refuses to accept any evidence to the contrary. He’s been insulting about it.
“Why resort to f-bombs and calling him an a-hole?”
Because he’s done nothing to show he deserves to be treated with respect.