Any last words FOX?
Any last words FOX?
(Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel)
picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption: NorthJericho
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous Shhhh…be…completely… still… | Here’s Joe… Next »
» 593 Comments
-
Recent Comments
viking gal on Urge to join Army… alex on Who is that homeless dude… alex on Who is that homeless dude… alex on Who is that homeless dude… lolwut on Who is that homeless dude… Kraas on Who is that homeless dude… factory on Who is that homeless dude… twot on Who is that homeless dude… Jefafa on Who is that homeless dude… Ruski on You’re wrong about … 
Cheezburger Network Blog
FIRST!!!!
Oh. Wow. Totally didn’t see THAT comment coming.
What am I supposed to say….SECOND?!?
Anyway.
My comment is meaningless…..HEY! JUST LIKE YOURS!! WOW!!!
Your jealousy is so transparent.
A f1rst-n00b who has good grammar??
Now I’ve seen everything.
Well, technically, the “so” should have been “very” or some other such word. “So” needs be followed by some form of “that,” just as “not only” needs to be followed by some form of “but also.” No bigs, since this is not a high-brow format, but qqqq shouldn’t get the “good grammar” prize, either.
But he spelt a bigg wurd ritez…. ^_^
LOL–Yes he did! Actually, Grammar FAIL on me, because “very transparent” is wrong. In proper ICHC/PK parlance, qqqq could have said “Transparent jealousy is transparent.”
Keep that Lolanguage crap on ICHC and IHAH. It’s where it is, belongs, and always shall be.
And it shall die there. And then we shall celebrate.
Do not insult the anchor store! They will find you and *index finger across throat* !!
x y is x, is not a ICHC thing, it an internet thing. aka a meme.
Perspicacious PiMan is perspicacious.
*hands pittypat a monitor wipe*
*snerks*
Amused jules is amused.
Tell that to Encyclopedia Dramatica.
Maybe you’ll get your own article!
not just AM radio any more in the “Fairness” act.
So an 80/20 ration on am radio is what you consider fair? BTW, before you start about free market, etc. That argument is full of holes. There is and audience for progressive talk, as it’s been successful in most of the markets it’s been tried. The problem is ownership. Too many owners are large corporations, or media bigwigs, like Murdoch, who are conservative. So, we get only conservative programming.
If an 80/20 conservative ratio on talk radio isn’t fair, then the 75/25 (MSNBC, CNN, ABC vs. FOX) liberal ratio on mainstream media MORE than makes up for it. The Fairness Act is pathetic. The media isn’t something you regulate.
No, sorry, that’s still a part of your conspiracy theory, see. I can get facts to back up my argument about bias on talk radio. You have only talking points to repeat.
MSNBC was sort of set up as a counterbalance to Fox. I’ll give you that one. However, the other networks are not leaning any particular way unless it’s conservative, because that’s who owns them. Why else do you think Larry King gave McCain a free half hour the night Obama paid for his infomercial?
Because Larry King is on cable and Obama was on network TV, moron.
Still free vs paid, and CNN is on in quite a lot of households. Thanks for the name calling. You proved the worth of your opinion.
Nice mouth on you, David. You french kiss Rush with that mouth?
oh…god…image i didn’t need
*hands i_tego Visine bottle* Here, it gets the dread out!
Awesome. Simply awesome.
Rush likes it dirty. You know he does.
Ew. Need brain bleach.
The cigar would be your first clue….
What do you suppose his “safe” word is?
The safeword is “Reaganomics”. Now open up for the ball gag!
LMFAO!!!
Very few people actually remember what Reganomics actually was supposed to be. Ain’t been none ’round these parts in nigh on 20 years
I thought it was funding a boom by opening up near infinite creidit markets while running down manufactory
yep, that sums it up.
Obama bought time on network and cable concerns, except for ABC.
Did anyone watch Barbara West’s interview with Joe Biden?
If that’s “neutral” or even unbiased then I live next to a brothel, ringed by brothels in a town of baby merchants.
ABC hasn’t fired her yet which leads me to the supposition that they are, infact, not unbiased. Just a thought. Make your own judgment. *you know you will*
Yeah, but was it biased?
The idea that MSNBC was set up as “a counterbalance to Fox” is ludicrous. This is the same network that summarily fired Phil Donahue for his vocal opposition to the war. The fact that they now host Kieth Olbermann and Rachel Maddow only demonstrates that that they’ve discovered the strength of the market for unapologetic center-left commentary.
Drop the “center” part. They’re far-left if anything.
Far-left is Democracy Now and the other Amy Goodman clones… MSNBC is most definitely nowhere near far-left. Also, center-left is a good description of Olbermann, not MSNBC as a whole.
According to my Danish cousins, we have no far left in this country. Except maybe Mother Jones magazine.
I think Keith Olbermann (my favorite crush) dips his toes into the far left at times, but swims mainly in center-left waters. I think a lot of righties think MSNBC=Olbermann/Maddow and a lot of lefties think FOX=O’Reilly/Hannity. Elsewhere in this thread I suggested people watch all three (MSNBC, CNN, and FOX) channels, so they could better see through spin in its various forms. Otherwise, they buy into too much spun information, and obliterate their ability and desire to think for themselves. I liken FOX and MSNBC to dessert: Fine for a treat, but terrible as a main diet.
far left of you is not far left. it is left. period. far left is throwing Molotov cocktails at the barricades at WTO and recycling your toilet paper.
It is refreshing that there are nearly 4 whole shows on cable dedicated to the actual news and how many people view it. I say “nearly” because Colbert still presents from a “centristically” rightwing view. It’s a parody of that but he is staunch in his positions.
Lol @ recycling your toilet paper.
Just cause you own it doesn’t mean you dictate the way it does news, I realize he has the power to do that, but has he? There really isn’t much proof of it. That’s not a good example either since you can’t say that he’s demanded more conservative issues.
Murdoch owns Fox
Here’s the crux of the problem though. Too much ownership in too few hands. I said it earlier. Media is already regulated. It’s already “regulated” by big companies and conservative fat cats. They are just telling you something else and unfortunately people buy it. Having the PUBLIC airwaves dominated by just a few large companies is dangerous. it’s just as bad as any government control, because it leaves the “message” in the hands of just a few.
The “public airwaves” that seem to include NBC and CBS, you mean? Those same airwaves that also include NPR and Air America?
Your logic and reasoning have reached a fail (or perhaps, your emotions are simply preventing any potential for rational thought on the matter). Clearly anyone who wants to start a radio or TV station, or even a whole network, can. Indeed, Rupert Murdoch did so. So did the Drobny brothers.
Clearly anyone who wants to start a radio or even a whole TV network, can, as long as they are incredibly rich.
Lorne Michaels is a Republican, right? SNL skits weren’t exclusive pro-Republican, were they?
Producing and owning aren’t the same thing.
Yeah, you’re right. Sorry!
That’s because Lorne belongs to the (possibly resurgent?) reasonable wing of the Republican party. Plus, he’s a businessman first: anything that gets the ratings is okay with him.
That makes sense–Thanks! OT–The GOP is going to have to do something to doll up their message, or else we’ll all be *choke* agreeing before too long!
Lorne Michaels actually has a conscience. He want his show to be funny and to be topical and currant. What is funny does not depend on the the current administration or their adherents. It is more dependent on the brutal truth of the reality. The sketches are caricatures of reality. That is why they are funny. If they didn’t correspond to reality they would not be funny.
Lorne Michaels made the statement that he may not agree with Sarah Palin’s politics, but he liked her personally and was really struck by the power she had as a speaker and her power to really reach people. When she walks into a room she owned it, and not in a scary way. Even Aric Bardwren liked her.
I’ve read that from other sources. Nobody questions her charisma, but, as for the rest, the nicest way I’ve heard it put is “not intellectually curious.” I’ve never met or seen her in person, but, apart from her message, I don’t like her delivery. To me, she comes across in sarcastic tones. Her syntax, even outside of the Katie Couric interview, is patchy, with no cadence. Her overuse of colloquialisms and vocal pauses is distracting. Lastly, her voice/accent is grating to my ears. Politics notwithstanding, I’m not a fan.
IN WHAT RESPECT, CHARLIE?
I have the same reactions when I hear Obama speak
I think it’s a preconceived notion of what we’re going to get from our particular candidates, and since we both have our minds made up, we hear what we want to hear. I can identify Obama as a powerful speaker, but when I hear him, all I get is “wah wah wah wah tax increase wah wah wah wah I know better than you wah wah wah wah wah wah reparations wah wah wah waaaaaaaaah”. Now, I know good and well that’s not what he’s saying, but getting my brain to process what is being said is difficult considering that my predudices against him as a candidate have colored my view of him. Knowing that is allowing me to give him a chance before I pre-judge him, but it’s still something I have to work on 
Geez, I couldn’t hear any of that over the waaahmbulance.
I am pretty sure that this “control” issue was one reason that the Wall Street Journal sale to Murdoch was upsetting to many- he DOES dip his hand into the editorial boards an similar in many of his newpapers and TV and Radio stations He is sort of known for it- thus the concern. One (unconfirmed) item- Clear channel (a very conservative, but also more into money than ideals group), controls over 50% of the radio stations in over 50% of the markets in the US…I avoid all CC stations at all costs- not bc I disagree with them- cause I honestly do, but because that much homogenization is just bad for a democracy.
FACT
Progressive radio was here in my area, a massivley BLUE county.
FACT
The ratings sucked, even for AM
FACT
The station dropped it to avoid closing the doors
FACT
Randy Roads and Al Franken suck to listen to
*tosses dictionary to BattleCry*
*Uses it to even out table leg
Oh, that’s why.
yeah, its the only thing I could think of
What I meant was, that’s why you seem to have no idea what the word “fact” means.
Wrong. Progressive talk has NOT been successful most places it’s tried. And unless you’re willing and able to put forth a statistic that disproves this, I don’t feel the need to either.
Here’s how it works. I explained it before. I have a post below that goes into it also. When you “try” a format on your smallest station, then don’t promote it so anybody knows it’s there, it will fail. Simple fact whether it’s progressive talk, sports, whatever. This happened in my city and has happened elsewhere. Talkers magazine shows progressives consistently in the top 20, some in the top 10. They are managing this even while being on fewer stations. I put a link. Ed Shultz is #11, there are at least four more that I can identify clearly as progressives in the top 15. Some I haven’t heard of, so I can’t say which side they’re on, if any, and some I know aren’t political at all, like Dr. Dean. Progressives are managing this feat even while being on far fewer stations. How do you explain this? It means toe ones they ARE on have big followings. It also means that if they were on more stations they’d be even higher on the list. People DO listen to them when they can get on the air. Why are conservatives feeling threatened by them if they’re of no consequence?
To make it simple, Americans as a populace are not 80% conservative. It’s utterly illogical to assume that there is no market for progressive talk when at least half of the voting population apparently is interested in another message. Your argument holds no water, and you haven’t provided sources because there aren’t any, other than pundits and rumor spreading by such people.
Ed Shultz has consistently performed in the to 10 in other quarters as well, at least as high as 7 in the older charts I’ve looked at so far. Other Progressives have also posted higher than on this most recent one. It fluctuates from month to month, same as on TV.
“When you “try” a format on your smallest station, then don’t promote it so anybody knows it’s there, it will fail”
They “tried” it a decade ago, on one of the most powerful stations in the country (WLW-AM) for some number of months and it failed miserably (Google “Carmine Guzman”).
Ratings for Air America consistently are in the lowest Arbitron percentile, and they lose programming to other formats (if they retain their affiliates at all) regularly.
“Progressive” (aka liberal) talk radio fails because it’s usually an endless rant about the other side, and that gets old pretty quickly. If liberal talk radio offered some form of pragmatic solution to the world’s problems, they’d probably get higher listener retention.
Refer to the Wikipedia doc on Air America for reference (since we can’t post links).
No, it isn’t. You only know this because that’s what Rush told you? ( who is an endless rant if ever there was one) Sure there are a couple like this, same as there are many on the Right. I’s say you shouldn’t talk about something you have no experience with. AS I’ve said before. Ed Shultz features a pro business segment,. He, and others have high profile guests (Pat Buchanon and other conservatives included), economists, members of congress to discuss the topic if the day. There are often call in segments on a given topic, not necessarily related to any particular person or party, such as Prop * or ethanol or whatever. The Wikipedia article is not up to date, and not everything on it is accurate. You should know it isn’t always a reliable source. Talkers magazine, which I posted on one of my other links is a trade publication. It shows differently. You obviously didn’t read all the posts before commenting.
“No, it isn’t. You only know this because that’s what Rush told you?”
Jesus H Christ lady, how many times do I have to tell you that not only do I not listen to conservative talk radio, I don’t listen to any at all!!! Please, for the love of all that is good and holy, *try to pay attention*.
Like I said in another post in this ceaseless thread, there are far too many posts to sift through to try to find a single link (that is not self-evident, since apparently you have to use that God-forsaken URI field and the URL itself can’t be shown, so I can’t do a search on the page, and so on). So please, re-post your link and I will be happy to debunk it for you.
“I don’t listen to any at all!!!”
And in case you need this clarified (which is seeming more likely the longer this goes on), I am referring to talk radio, of which I listen to none, Rush included (how anyone can stand him for more than 30 seconds is beyond me). I don’t listen to conservative talk radio, I don’t listen to liberal talk radio, *I DON’T LISTEN TO TALK RADIO AT ALL*.
Is that clear?
Your attempts at pigeonholing me once again have met with complete failure.
“The Wikipedia article is not up to date”
“In Arbitron’s Winter 2008 ratings book…” (the Wikipedia article)
“As of October 2008, Air America programming was carried on 66 terrestrial broadcast stations…” (the Wikipedia article)
Holy sh*t girl, how much more up to date does it need to be for you?!?
And I love how Wikipedia is fine until it contradicts someone’s point, and then it’s not always accurate. The citations on the page, are they inaccurate as well? When it’s actually not reliable, it’s because someone posted some crap without citations — it’s like the world’s largest online debating forum: you have to back up what you post there.
So, you worked as an intern or whatever in radio, “back in the day”, so the rest of us should just shut up and let you ramble on unhindered on this topic? That’s fair and balanced…
Screw you. I’m well informed, and I’ve taken enough of your insults. Thise that can’t back up their arguments fling insults. Several others have pointed out that you haven’t actually debunked anything, and yet you continue to rip me apart. If you listen to NO talk radio as you claim, why are we even having this discussion. Why do you even care what’s on. You contradict yourself left and right. Even were it true, you are clearly getting your info from primarily right wing sources. As for Wikipedia, who said it’s fine or not fine up until now? The very article you are citing has the history section with a flag for “needs citation.” I haven’t been citing wikipedia today, and rarely do at all. Why are you so defensive?
My past career experience has NOTHING to do with this discussion, it was given only because someone ELSE asked me about it or I wouldn’t have brought it up art all. You continue to put words in my mouth and attack my credibility. I have backed up my posts and come up with arguments from several angles. What have you done besides repeat yourself in a continually angrier fashion each time? Sorry to say, but a side by side comparison of talk radio ratings is more relevant than arbitrary market share in a few specific markets.
You are losing the argument (which you shouldn’t have had a stake in anyway if you don’t listen to talk radio) so you attack my credibility, etc. You should run a campaign! Go stick your fingers back in your ears as even though others have backed me up, you continue to not listen. You are nearing the realm of self parody.
You seem not to be listening at all. The other guy is using citations and backing up his argument, whereas you seem to be the one on the defensive. He has statistics, you have anger against the “Right Wing machine.”
The fairness act is a transparent attempt for the government to get their dirty little hands into yet another public domain.
Others on the site have backed you up. Statistics and facts back up this Xavier person. You’re being silly.
I live in Massachusetts and I can’t find Air America. It might not be aired here. I have to live with Howie Carr and Rush Limgaugh at night. UGH!!! It’s f**king Massachusetts! PLEASE let me hear some unbiased or even slightly liberal rhetoric. PLEASE!!!
It’s always aired on satellite radio, which they are practically giving away these days. You can get satellite anywhere. And I’ll bet that you have your pick of NPR stations there as well.
Either way, I’d recommend complaining to someone. If there is a demand, the market will meet it. Minerva can’t get this through her skull, but it’s a fact.
Stepnerd explained rather well why this isn’t the case. Plus, she shouldn’t have to pay anything at all to get access to a different point of view. She proves my example but you twist it into something else.
So she did not buy a radio?
Maybe it came standard in her auto. Still not the same as a subscription.
car equals subscription?
FAIL
it was a joke, lighten up.
OOOH Did Xavier just come dangerously close to making a personal insult?
So, hypocrisy Win there from the whining git…
Min is far from thick skulled, since that’s what you’re implying.
“It’s utterly illogical to assume that there is no market for progressive talk”
No assumption is necessary. The facts speak for themselves. I’d call the Air America bankruptcy a fairly significant “tell” on the market for “progressive” talk radio.
The bankruptcy was four years ago, and they’re not only still going, they’re picking up affiliates again. Your assertion that liberal talk is “boring” has more to do with your bias than any objective quality held by the liberal radio industry.
Fox News lost around $450 million it’s first five years in business. Air America is starting year six this year. Any takers on whether it’s going to turn a profit? I’d buy stock in the company if I could!
Quoth Xavier:
“It’s utterly illogical to assume that there is no market for progressive talk”
No assumption is necessary. The facts speak for themselves. I’d call the Air America bankruptcy a fairly significant “tell” on the market for “progressive” talk radio.
Quoth Mark:
“Your assertion that liberal talk is “boring” has more to do with your bias”
Where in what I said, have I implied that liberal talk is “boring”? I said it’s not marketable.
Air America went into bankruptcy because it failed. Chapter 11 bankruptcy allows companies to continue operating while they restructure. That’s how it works. Whatever point you’re trying to make is lost in your emotional response to my post.
You’d have better returns on your money flushing it down the toilet (oh wait, that’s what investing in stocks currently is right now) than investing in Air America. Example:
“Mr. Bernstein explained his vision of Air America’s future as “I don’t see our purpose as ‘answering’ conservative radio or Rush Limbaugh. There’s no clear majority in this country today. We want to talk to everyone and help everyone make the right choice.” On November 15th, 2007, industry news site Radio Online reported that Mr. Bernstein is exiting Air America.”
Apparently, making Air America a profitable venture isn’t what Green Family Media cares about.
There’s no bias here, unless you yourself bring it to the table. I have no dog in this fight — I don’t watch FOX or MSNBC or any of them, and I have one radio station preset in my car (the aforementioned KCBS), where I get some of my news (the rest I get from the AP wire). It makes no difference to me whether they all fail or all thrive — at the end of the day, I make the same amount of money and my rent is the same every month.
So, you fail at labeling me.
Actually, not so much “labeling” fail as it is, “pigeonholing” fail.
Bankruptcy doesn’t prove the lack market demand. Using that logic, you could say that the collapse of Wall Street means we don’t want to have money.
In the case of Air America, however, whose business model is 100% based on market demand, it makes the case rather well. If you are going to propose a strawman, you have to use one that applies to the topic at hand.
No, you are incoreect. Kenny Rogers Roasters failed not because they didn’t do business, but because management did a poor job and bankrupted the company in SPITE of it’s success at ground level. That is not the only indicator of whether a company sells it’s product. I see you are one of those individuals who will only pot their fingers in their ears going “lalalala” when presented with facts so that you can remain in denial. Here’s the Talkers magazine link again. Click my name. (yes, you can post links) Stop believing what Rush tells you verbatim. he’s a known liar.
Air America was acquired, is under better management (hopefully) They are gaining audience, in spite of what you believe, and there are successful progressive talkers on other networks as well. My information is correct about it not getting promoted in some markets. I live in one of these and know about a couple of others. Progressive programming is even on the air in Alaska, because there are people there who want to hear it.
Your argument is completely illogical that 80% of Americans only want conservative talk, as that does not represent the views of a cross section of the populace. Air America’s business model is based on Market Demand? Isn’t any business? Getting your product TO the market in the first place is necessary before you can create demand. That is where the barrier lies, not not lack of demand. I’ll say it again. The message is in the hands of too few. I’ll say it again: The fairness doctrine, at least the way it was written before, may not be necessary, but breaking up the ownership is. Any message should be allowed to be presented in every market, but it isn’t at the moment.
Try being more open minded and feeling less threatened. No one will take away your Rush and O’reilly. People will just have an alternative voice to listen to if they want another perspective. Why is that so threatening?
“Try being more open minded and feeling less threatened. No one will take away your Rush and O’reilly.”
Try reading what I write for once. It’s all over this thread, feel free to research my response to this — I’m tired of repeating myself.
“Air America’s business model is based on Market Demand? Isn’t any business? Getting your product TO the market in the first place is necessary before you can create demand. That is where the barrier lies, not not lack of demand.”
You seem to have this romanticized view of Air America and liberal radio in general. I’ve given you an example of liberal radio that works, and has worked well, for decades: NPR. Apaprently there is a demand for that, because there are hundreds of stations across the country that are NPR-only.
There is no demand for Air America not because of some perceived lack of opportunity, but because (and I promised myself I wouldn’t go here) there is no demand for their brand of hate-radio. I’ve explained where “progressive” formats have been given more than a fair chance on one of the most far-reaching, powerful AM stations in the country, and it failed miserably, *on its own*.
Fact is, “progressive” radio that offers nothing but repeated vitriol and hate directed at the “conservatives” in the country, isn’t really that “in demand”.
Yes. Clearly you haven’t listened in recent years.
Any by the way, I’m still not stupid.
Who called you stupid? I refuse to call names because then it brings me down to UF’s level.
“Yes. Clearly you haven’t listened in recent years.”
That would probably be the case. The last time I subjected myself to so-called “progressive” talk radio, it was so full of juvenile hate that I haven’t felt the need to try it again. I sincerely hope its grown up since then.
@Minerva: I hereby verify your continuous, ongoing lack of stupidity.
I’m still waiting to hear where I called her stupid — hoping like hell that she’s not now resorting simply to pulling sh*t out of her ass…
You didn’t directly, but you’ve been insinuating my opinion is unqualified with barely veiled hits about my lack of reason and/or intelligence. I already answered this in another spot.
He crossed the implication line with the ‘through her skull’ comment
Well, UF, when someone clearly isn’t listening to what is being said, it’s either willful or inherent. I’m inclined to assume the former, because “thick skulled” can also be a conscious decision rather than inherent trait.
Pointing out the flaw in your logic pattern by using a ridiculous example is not the same as indulging in a strawman tactic. Look up the definition again, and you’ll see that I wasn’t trying to substitute topics.
Here’s another example: If I set up a lemonade stand in a low-traffic area, my ensuing bankruptcy would be the result of bad marketing, not diminished public demand. See where I’m going now?
I’ve clarified this a bit in my reply to Minerva — the lack of demand (analogously) is because your lemonade sucks, not because it’s lemonade. Your lemonade didn’t sell when you *were* set up in high-traffic areas, and was replaced with a product that the listening public *did* want.
Still not true. Look at the recent numbers. Or just stick your fingers back in your ears.
Minerva, there are 8 billion posts in this thread at this point — can you provide this link again for convenience?
You’re assuming my lemonade sucks, which is untrue. Now, replay the scenario, under the assumption that the lemonade is cool and a delight to the palate.
Which is a subjective measure. And I’d go one further — if your lemonade meets a hitherto-as-yet-unfilled demand, the lemonade lovers will find your stand regardless of where it is and your business will grow.
Subjective measure argument is moot. For the scenario, we’re saying I have a good product. Regardless, you’ve just suggested an unworkable business plan. It’s impossible to develop a new customer base without exposure to potential customers, through location, advertising, etc. Word-of-mouth takes years to build, and I’m likely to go broke in the meantime. You’re getting a little dancy on this one.
In the specific example of the lemonade stand, sure, you probably want to set it up in a high traffic area.
The problem with trying to apply this example, however, to the plight of liberal talk radio, is the presupposition is that liberal talk radio somehow never gets any promotion when it’s offered. I’ve proved that wrong with a single example (refer to Einstein) — WLW-AM promoted the hell out of Carmine Guzman, and he was in a choice talk spot — 9 to midnight — on a 50,000-watt clear-channel station, available to 38 states. He failed because he pissed off his audience with his hate. I’m not saying that all liberal talk is vitriol, but really, can you blame WLW for not trying it again?
The only source we have in this forum for this supposed lack of promotion, is Minerva, who has demonstrated a clear and evident prejudice on the matter. She keeps telling me to go sift through hundreds of posts that all look identical, to find the one magical post of hers where she gave this link that backs up her point. I’ve asked her to repost the link for the sake of convenience — if you like, you can do her the favor, I’d be grateful.
No, several people, including rhorho disprove your arguments with many examples such as the lemonade stand. She points out that she would need exposure to the market, but you contradict her by changing to lack of promotion instead of what she was attempting to show, i.e. that there is no maret available n which to promote the lemonade. You sir, are the only one not getting it. I happen to have effective arguments, so you continue to attack my credibility even in posts addressed to someone else. Classy. You are still assuming it’s only me that has proven you wrong. Fester, rhorho, PortlandMark, and others have all been chiming in, but you seem to ignore that.
Are you seriously going anecdotal on this? Okay, accepting your anecdote, my lemonade stand scenario is flawed because listeners didn’t like Carmine Guzman. I think that’s going back to the moot subjective measure argument. As for Minerva’s statistics, I haven’t done the research she has. Have you tried researching the topic independently? There is no rule that says you have to depend upon Minerva’s research, right? Lastly, I’m not clear on how I would be doing *Minerva* a favor by playing info fetch for *you.* If I’m wrong not to see that logic, please explain.
Meh, He’s all hot air, but will momentarily come back and say something like “I know you are but what am I, try to discredit me again instead of coming up with new arguments and then cop out altogether. So far been the pattern.
He needs to take a course in logic. Doing so would expose him to the basic principles of expressing himself correctly. He seems frustrated that he has something to say, but doesn’t understand how to get it out there. He’s going all over the place with logic fallacies, ad hominems, and distractions. He’s struggling and flailing, and not producing a cohesive argument. I know his situation all too well: I do that sort of stuff in traffic all the time.
Oh, and we have sock to add to the bad tactic list.
What about the quality of your lemonade?
The quality of the lemonade has already been resolved (nine posts up). If you start at the beginning, you will get a better picture of what ground has already been covered.
True enough, but you added it AFTER…your focus was not on the product, but its marketing….are you a PC?
She disproves your theory outright by pointing out the example of the Wallstreeet crisis, and you still mange to twist it around and say in effect “but this is different, of course my idea MUST apply in this case.”
If Air America ( or “Progressive Talk” as you keep calling it ) had been successful wherever it had been tried, then the need for the Fairness Doctrine would have been eliminated.
Saying that Air America is successful while saying that the Fairness Doctrine is necessary is sort of killing your argument.
Or… maybe people just don’t want to listen to left wing programming.
Your argument is full of holes as well, simply because Rush Limbaugh, Mike Reagan, Sean Hannity, and all of them are funded by private sources, while, Air America was funded by taxpayers, a never-ending (apparently) source of revenue, and… it… still failed.
Somebody explain the joke plz =\
Fox is considered heavily conservative and biased against liberals,………funny because I have never seen another station Be that way…..most tv stations are biased against conservatives and only report bad things against liberals if they have too,….. so I don’t really care,……..
Radio is heavily conservative as liberal stations usually never last that long XD== in my area they were having a fit over “fairness” but it was so ironic because they had a station but it had almost no listeners XD
Untrue. The reason they don’t get listeners, is because in the interest of “fairness” the fatcat owners try a progressive format on their smallest signaled station of the 10 they own in a city, then don’t promote it anywhere. The weak signal combined with no advertising to get the word out that it’s even there is why the “experiment” fails. Not because people aren’t willing to listen. This recently happened in my market. Luckily, the next city over has progressive programming on a strong 50,000 watt signal, so I can still pick it up most days. They KNOW there’s a market.
Air America had financial issues not because they didn’t have an audience, but because the management was horrible. It’s the same reason Kenny Rogers Roasters went out of business. Not because nobody ate there, but because their business/expansion/marketing, etc was handled horribly. Air America reorganized and is still on the air. Progressive talkers are in the top 10 and top 20 of leading talk show hosts on radio, all while being on fewer stations! Imagine if they could get on the air in most markets! Check out Talkers magazine’s ratings chart. They’d be at the top of the list, right up there with the top conservatives.
The idea that there’s no market for progressive talk is hogwash. It’s a myth perpetrated by, guess who, Conservative talkers who are feeling threatened that their stranglehold on the PUBLIC airwaves is being threatened.
“Truth is that the network flopped from its inception just over two years ago and has been in a slow death spiral ever since. The rest of the liberal media has done a cowardly, rather miserable job in following up and reporting on the progress –or lack thereof– of the network.” Marc cooper
http://marccooper.com/dead-air-america/
Poor reporting doesnt translate well to radio I guess
The real problem is that in order to break the “stranglehold” that the conservative talk radio has on the “public” airwaves, the government is going to force radio stations to put liberal talk shows on their stations and give them equal air time as conservative shows. That means that the government gets to decide whats on the radio and not the free market.
If liberal talk has failed in the past why should any one be forced to listen to it? Why should a radio station be forced to carry something that will lose them endorsements, listeners and ultimately money? Because for some reason Liberals dont think they are getting their message out. They are. Its just that no one wants to hear it more than they already do on tv, in print, in highschool, college, from friends, and family members. Conservative talk is about having an opposition to the constant drumbeat of Bush is a terrorist, republicans are stupid, etc.
Thats why fox news does so well ratings wise above other news channels. They have shows like hanity and colmes where the 2 hosts are on either side of the aisle politically. They have shows like special report with britt hume which is more like the old style of news reporting (ala the liberal news media) and they have shows like hanity’s america which are decidedly conservative. Their reporting was pretty much even during the campaign coverage… positive and negative, for and against both candidates. The other channels were 67% positive for obama and like 14% negative against him. They were also inversely negative for mccain about 66% of the time and positive 17% of the time.
Colmes is a self proclaimed moderate. If that is another side of the aisle then you must be at an intersection.
“yeah, I have a couple… Butt cheeks”
“Truth is that the network flopped from its inception just over two years ago and has been in a slow death spiral ever since. The rest of the liberal media has done a cowardly, rather miserable job in following up and reporting on the progress –or lack thereof– of the network.” Marc cooper
marccooper.com/dead-air-america/
Poor reporting doesnt translate well to radio I guess
The real problem is that in order to break the “stranglehold” that the conservative talk radio has on the “public” airwaves, the government is going to force radio stations to put liberal talk shows on their stations and give them equal air time as conservative shows. That means that the government gets to decide whats on the radio and not the free market.
If liberal talk has failed in the past why should any one be forced to listen to it? Why should a radio station be forced to carry something that will lose them endorsements, listeners and ultimately money? Because for some reason Liberals dont think they are getting their message out. They are. Its just that no one wants to hear it more than they already do on tv, in print, in highschool, college, from friends, and family members. Conservative talk is about having an opposition to the constant drumbeat of Bush is a terrorist, republicans are stupid, etc.
Thats why fox news does so well ratings wise above other news channels. They have shows like hanity and colmes where the 2 hosts are on either side of the aisle politically. They have shows like special report with britt hume which is more like the old style of news reporting (ala the liberal news media) and they have shows like hanity’s america which are decidedly conservative. Their reporting was pretty much even during the campaign coverage… positive and negative, for and against both candidates. The other channels were 67% positive for obama and like 14% negative against him. They were also inversely negative for mccain about 66% of the time and positive 17% of the time.
Do you people ever listen to anyone other than what your pundits tell you? Editorials don’t count as news by the way. Air America is still on the air and going strong. They had a bad bump because of bad management. Even if Air America failed outright, their personalities have listening audiences. They would be picked up by another syndicated network. There are quite a lot of progressives making up the top 15 talkers. See my link. It’s a trade publication. They are managing this while being on fewer stations. It truly is a myth that there’s no audience.
I think Rachel Maddow (new MSNBC show) is scraping by, somehow. Her numbers have often exceeded Bill O’Reilly’s, and her re-run numbers often beat his re-runs, too. She has had a show on Air America for a while, and still does.
I <3 Rachel Maddow. If I were a lesbian I’d be all over her. Of course, that could just be because she looks like she *could* be a lesbian…
If I weren’t so crazy about Keith Olbermann, I would probably agree with you. I DO completely love her delivery, and am uber-glad she’s seeing such great success early in her tv career.
She’s a PhD I think. It’s why she sounds smart.
Is it true that PHD stands for ” Piled Higher and Deeper”?
In my own case, certainly.
I guess I should clarify. She acts and sounds like a PhD ought to. Although I concur that it’s not always the case. Several of my professors were full of arrogance, but not necessarily intelligence.
It’s all forgives, unless you’re calling me “smart.” In that case, my darling, it’s ON!
Rachel doesn’t mention it anymore, but she used to freely identify herself as a lesbian. Back when she was guesting on KO’s show, she mentioned it often. By the time she was filling in for Keith, she had dropped the references, and I haven’t heard any on her show. I don’t get Air America in my area, so I don’t know whether she mentions her sexuality on her radio show. I don’t think it matters, except I’m grateful she isn’t trying to get her meat hooks into my Keith!
There was a phase a few years ago in America, where it was cool to be gay. During that time it was a career boost to identify yourself as such. That fad has passed, so I would guess that’s the corollary.
That well may be, but she both made and dropped the references *this* year.
Rachel Maddow is my new favorite crush! (I know, I’m not “plumbed” right for her.) Well, not new exactly, I guess it’s been a couple years. I’m so happy for her success on MSNBC.
*hugs* Just got back. Did you hear about the fight?
So you have sources for your statistics? By an actual independent research group?
You mean, like Arbitron?
Yeah, so where is it. You say you have it, but don’t present it here. I have a link from the trade magazine for the industry. Progressives are right up there, and climbing. They manage this while being on fewer stations. Imagine if they could get on the air in other markets.
I can’t — as I expressed in another post in this thread, for some reason others can post links but I can’t (it just swallows the post when I hit “Add Comment”).
The best I can do is copy this for you:
“n Arbitron’s Winter 2008 ratings book, Air America stations carrying a majority AAR programming and in markets for which Arbitron reports results four times a year averaged a 1.2 share. The highest rated Air America affiliates were KPOJ in Portland, Oregon (3.7 share), WXXM in Madison, Wisconsin (3.5), and KABQ in Albuquerque, New Mexico (2.6). The lowest rated affiliates were WDTW and WLBY in Detroit, Michigan (unmeasurable), WOIC in Columbia, South Carolina (0.4), WTKG in Grand Rapids, Michigan (0.5), and flagship station WWRL in New York City (0.5).
WXXM in Madison had announced in November 2006 that it would switch to all sports programming by the end of the year.[27][28] Following a very vocal backlash from the station’s listeners[29] and syndicated hosts,[30] Clear Channel in Madison later backtracked, deciding to leave the progressive talk format on the station.[31] WWRL in New York recently dropped Thom Hartmann and now gets less than half of its programming from Air America.” (Wikipedia)
I mean, really, Minerva, they have a 0.5 in the largest liberal market in the world, and the city in which they started! This doesn’t really smell like success to me. Furthermore:
“As of October 2008, Air America programming was carried on 66 terrestrial broadcast stations,[32] an increase of 10% over the previous six months. Thirty-two of these stations broadcast a majority AAR programming. During the 4 1/2 years of the network’s existence, Air America has lost 63 affiliates to other programming or formats. Air America counts any station that carries any of their programming as an affiliate, similar to radio networks such as ESPN Radio.” (Wikipedia)
By all accounts, they launched with 100 affiliates. They since lost 63 of them (reducing that count to 37), and in the last year, they’ve picked up a grand total of 6 (10% increase to 66). That doesn’t exactly sound like they are taking the radio market by storm, but I suppose you can spin it anyway you can to help yourself sleep better at night.
(BTW the Wikipedia articles are cited, so the quotes I provide here are not “made up”).
Math fail (reading retention fail, actually) — 6 more was not in the last year, but in the last 6 months.
A few stations are not the big picture. The audience is growing. Did you look at the trade mag link I put forth? Also, Air America isn’t the whole picture. Ed Schultz, for example, is on Jones network, and Randi Rhodes is on a different one too. You would have to look at individual show ratings. Are those stations carrying only certain hosts? Are some of the talkers on local shows or only nationally syndicated ones.
Then it sounds to me like your own sources invalidate your claim of conservative suppression of progressive programming — if these people are doing well, then is that in *spite* of this mythical suppression effort? I mean, which is it? You can’t have it both ways.
“Also, Air America isn’t the whole picture.”
But they are not only a perfect example of (a) how anyone can start any network they like in this country, and (b) how if your programming is not attractive to a mass listenership, you will fail. If you look closely, (b) is the basis of most of my arguments on this topic.
Your clinging to to point (b) is disingenous at best. It is naive to to ignore factors such as availability to potential markets, lack of promotion and the quality of fiscal management when defining the reasons for a commercial radio network’s fiscal success.
To keep ignoring these factors after they are repeatedly pointed out to you moves you from the ‘naive’ basket to the ‘irrelevant’.
I wanted to post this earlier but had to leave and didn’t have time. Here’s why the Arbitron ratings alone fail to represent the whole story.
The “market share” being so small is misleading because it is comparing the particular programming to the ENTIRE set of whatever’s on the air. I’d like to see what the market share in that same market is for ANY talk radio. i bet it is also pretty small. But at least then we’d be comparing apples to apples. By looking at the whole thing, you’re comparing an Air America show with Opie & Anthony, Dee Snider’s House Of Hair, the local drive at five and morning circus, and the teeny bopper top 40. OF COURSE talk of any sort is only going to be a small part of all this. Not only is it apples to oranges, but also horseradish and breakfast cereal! Xavier, your source material appears to be compiled and edited by someone who only wants to make Air America look bad, but it’s all out of context and not the whole picture. I appreciate you trying to provide source data. The fact remains though, it’s really not true in the grand scheme of it all.
The point, that has been lost in all this, is that you claim progressive talk isn’t on more stations, or enjoys wider distributions, because of a subjective conspiracy theory that you conveniently do not have to prove.
To buttress my argument, that it’s simply not as attractive an option for the majority of radio listeners, I provide data from an objective measuring agency — Arbitron — who is in the business of creating ratings based on listenership. I use their measurements of the strongest and most focused (to date) effort to create a progressive talk network: Air America. Since its launch with 100 affiliates, they dropped to 30 something, and have since made it back up to 66, 6 of which came on in the past 6 months.
Now, your thesis is based on this supposed hunger for an alternate progressive talk listening audience. I have demonstrated, in the most impartial way possible (with boring dry numbers), that your thesis simply doesn’t hold water in the real world. Your reaction to that has ranged from equivocation, to making excuses (excuses based on the conspiracy theory you harbor), to simply denying that the numbers mean what they say.
Numbers don’t lie, Minerva. Your conclusions require something that runs directly counter to human nature.
I don’t understand it either, TBH. People, for whatever reason, clearly seem to like their newspapers left, their radio right, and their TV a mix of the two. But to continue to maintain that it’s some vast corporate conspiracy is simply ridiculous.
Let’s take a similar example. For I don’t know how long now, there have been several conspiracy theories circulating that Detroit is suppressing 100mpg technology (the numbers vary, sometimes it’s 300mpg, and so on, sometimes it’s cars that run on water, etc). The theory is that they are in bed with the oil companies.
However, that doesn’t stand up to even a casual analysis: if any manufacturer had access to internal combustion technology that produced 100mpg in a vehicle that someone wanted to buy, they would corner the goddamn market. It’s just absurd to think that a business with that sort of potential market share would sit on it, and prefer to go out of business.
I’ve applied this analogy to your radio conspiracy theory, and the same result happens: if there is in fact this enormous unmet demand for progressive talk out there, common sense dictates that a business, in business to make money, is going to fill that need, because that means ratings and that means money. But apparently, even the flagship station of Air America can’t drum up significant market share, in what is arguably the most receptive market in America (possibly next to San Francisco) to progressive programming.
So how can you continue to deny the facts on this?
Way too long winded. Summing up:
- The Arbitron numbers on the Wikipedia page are averaged over the majority of their programming day (assuming 24-hour stations, thats going to overlap any number of conservative competition). And honestly, if morning schlock jocks are outperforming progressive talk, your argument is on a very shaky foundation.
- Radio stations are businesses. They offer what people want. People apparently want conservative talk. If they didn’t those stations’ ratings would drop and they would go out of business.
- We know your primary theme is imbalance. It’s your assertions on the reason for that imbalance that are under attack, and rightly so — your assertions require an entity that is in business to make money and increase its market share, to perform in an non-competitive fashion. That’s absurd.
My gosh you claim conspiracy theory against the radio but how does yours not sound the same…
This trend has happened in several markets as “proof” that the format doesn’t work. I’d refer you to Media Matters, etc, but you will say they can’t be right because they’re progressive. Also, center for american progress collected the data once. it’s also in my new link. The difference is, I can show examples. Plus, I never said I thought it was a conspiracy, only an imbalance that the righties fear to correct.
I never even claimed conspiracy, I claimed imbalance. Which I can back up with facts. Why do conservatives feel so threatened by any of it? No one will take Rush off the air or limit anybody’s free speech! Air America is still on the air. Progressive programming shows growth in markets where it’s given a fair chance. (i.e. promoted, etc.) One station in buffalo put it on a 50,000 watt station because they know there’s an audience. Yet it’s suppressed in other markets. Hmmmm. No conspiracy necessary. I don’t think anyone has secretly planned this all along or anything, just that right wingers are now afraid they might lose the freakishly large 80/20 share of stations/time slots. It’s not difficult to understand. Half the country wouldn’t mind a different voice if the recent election has any indication.
Minvera the news media is the different voice, from the television to the news paper, all of it has a left slant, even if ever so slight. I realize it takes much money to make a station but there is no proof of rupert Murdoch’s involvement in
the leanings of a media station.
Agreed — Rupert Murdoch is in it for the money, and whatever politics sells more ads, he’s for. It’s nice to think of all media outlet owners as actively involved in the “message” as was Hearst, but the fact is, there is simply too much money at stake in TV and radio to have that involved a hand in daily operations.
Actually, Rupert got so much money by looking at a bigger picture. Yes, he’s in it for the money, but the sale of ads is only a small proportion of his income. He gains a far greater proportion from miriad investments that he endeavours to protect through the continued fostering of a conservative, reactionary environment.
This is achieved quite effectively by his media empire and any revenue he may lose from progressive advertisers is seen as an investment in the big picture on his part.
It seems half the country managed to vote the way they did *in spite of* this massive imbalance you keep on about.
Trust me, people vote with their pocketbooks when it comes to radio format. Again, you’ve got this notion built up (which you cannot back up with anything other than anecdotal evidence) that the big, bad media giants are “suppressing” the “growth” of progressive radio, for some supposed political reasons. As I said below, these guys are driven by money, not politics, and if progressive radio sells more ads or raises the amount they can charge for ads, you’d see format changes overnight.
The fact is (the one you won’t acknowledge) that huge radio stations *have* tried it, with plenty of promotion, and it failed, *miserably*. Hate radio isn’t what people want; this is why NPR is still around and basically thriving without any substantial public money at all — because its programming is not driven by vitriol and hate. People like radio that offers reasoned opinions and solutions (even if they are not always the right solutions). They prefer “adult” radio, in other words. You can only tune into the politics-of-crying-babies for so long before the nausea makes you change channels. Again, people vote with their pocketbooks (or more correctly in this case, with their radio dials).
Stepnerd sums it up in Murdoch’s case admirably. You are the one deluding yourself. I presented facts from the industries own measure. You presented only biased and incomplete ratings data. There isn’t even a comparison to the conservative talkers in the same market you cited!
Facts, meh…Why bother reading all the stuff you’ve ALREADY posted when someone else can just make poop up!
Couple off things…
Of course there’s a market for liberal radio (progressive? my ass…marxism is nothing new), otherwise it wouldn’t be gaining ratings.
Also…why would ANY station switch formats if it WASN’T going to be profitable. You can’t cite “It’s the FATCATS!! The rich are sabatoging the Air Waves!!”, and then say “THERE’S PROFIT IN THAT THAR AIR AMERICA!!!” Because fatcats, aside from teh treu belifers!!, dont care about any color or ideology other than green. If there’s a ton of money in it, it will go.
And “public” things aren’t all that public…how public is PBS if you don’t own a TV? Or how about the airwaves if you don’t own a radio? I’m pretty sure the stereotypical homless guy with a shopping cart considers PBS and the airwaves as for “them upper class”.
And as for TALKERS…here’s all I need to know about that website. It’s run by a guy named Michael Harrison, and here’s snippet from that site:
“TALKERS publisher Michael Harrison presented this year?s Freedom of Speech Award to Air America talk host Al Franken. ”
Fair and Balanced doesn’t work in either direction.
You’re a liberal pushing a website run by a guy that’s a liberal who’s in the business of pushing liberal talk radio.
So, how is the kool aid?
Nope, it’s a trade publication. “TALKERS magazine is the leading trade publication serving the talk radio industry in America. It has been dubbed “The Bible of Talk Radio” by Business Week Magazine. As technology and media trends have evolved, the publication has expanded to serve the cutting edge of the “New Talk Media” which includes talk on the Internet as well as cable television.”
Not to mention, the only thing I cited from them is their compilation of ratings data. Or are you suggesting they made all that up too? Since Xavier says wikipedia is a great source, here’s what the beginning of that article says: “Talkers Magazine is a trade industry publication related to talk radio in the United States. Its slogan is “The Bible of Talk Radio and the New Talk Media”. In addition to radio, it covers talk shows on broadcast and cable television as well as Internet-only shows and podcasting.
Twice a year, Talkers publishes rankings of the top-rated radio talk shows; these rankings are often quoted in newspapers and other publications. “
Also, having started in 1990, it was around long before Progressive radio really hit the stage. Nice try attempting to discredit me.
The trade pub and the internet magazine are both run by Michael Harrison, who is about as far leaning to the left as Rupert Murdock is to the right.
And Business Week? You mean the Subsidiary of the NY TIMES??!?!? No slant there whatsoever right? I’m not Xavier, you can take or leave Wikipedia, but you had damn well pay attention to who you’re taking to.
“The Bible of Talk Radio?”…not much different from the “King of Pop” or “King of all Media”, where perception is reality but not always the truth.
From here on I wish to be referred to as the “Bible of Scuba Diving”.
You discredit yourself by citing all of these supremely left leaning sources and then trying to state that liberal talk shows have mass or mainstream appeal. If they do its because they do, not because of statistics given by a group of folks with an agenda…all stats can be manipulated and you know it. You can’t defend a publication that only prints 10 issues a year and yet somehow is heralded by the lapdog publication of a soon to be defunct liberal media giant.
Take a step outside yourself and you’ll see you’ve been played. And that’s the only way to beat the game. Because you think you’re fighting with a republican. But you’re not. You’re fighting with true conservative that hates the Republicans just as much as the Dems. I figured out long ago that their constant fighting…by which I mean OUR constant fighting…is what is really leading the country down the tubes.
So your call, you wanna keep dancing, lil puppet or you wanna take a stepback and look at what you’ve been doing all over this page?
The joke is not so much that it is a funny joke, but that it has so much potential for the truth that it is scary. The fairness doctrine is basically saying that what goes over the air waves must include an equal amount of liberal commentary as it does conservative. To show both sides equally. Despite the failure of stations like Air America and their ilk. It’s basically telling these businesses how to run their business, but it is only about radio stations. The fairness doctrine doesn’t apply to television yet. That’s probably because the “news” programs tend to lean liberal, so it’s not an issue to the Democrats. If the TV stations had leaned conservative, they’d be all over them.
Now, with that background information, we can get to the truth of the so-called “joke” that the picture portrays. Obama has quite a socialist leaning and one of the main socialist ideals is to control the information that the populace obtains. It’s the whole “if you tell a lie enough times, it becomes the truth” type of thing. Even the die-hard liberals know the truth behind the one elected to be President (most of the people buying up guns and ammo before Obama gets in power actually voted for him). There’s little doubt that he will try to control what goes over the TV and the radio, the true question is whether or not he will be successful. This picture tried to make a joke about the situation in which we have before us, because FoxNews tends to broadcast both sides of an argument and not just the leftist side as most other stations. Personally, I don’t watch any of them, but I have read enough independent studies to make me think that FoxNews has everything planned out exactly to ensure that both sides are covered and the other stations (with CBS being the worst offender) primarily only show the liberal side.
Who knows exactly where we’ll end up, but by the time we get there, it’ll be too late for America to fix it. She did this to herself, so let’s all just get in line like the good little troopers that we all are. Just wait for what homeland security will do next, for yours and my benefit.
I thought Libbies were supposed to be ANTI-censorship.
*heh*
Okay, I lied, I never really thought that. I know better. Libbies are just Fundies with different-flavored kool-aid.
What a great boil-down! I was trying to think of another way to say it, but yours is much more vivid and colorful!
flavorful too
Truly! I was going to go into a dry drone, using a 1-10 scale. Not LOLable!
.
OT, but with a weak tie-in to the KoolAid reference, there is a great show on MSNBC this evening about the Jim Jones’ People’s Temple mass murder/suicide in French Guyana. For conservatives, the bias on the show is non-partisan, so it won’t make you “go all Commie,” or anything. I believe it starts at 7:00 Eastern, but check your local listings.
i thought that was supposed to be in the CNN? Either that or CNN is just ripping MSNBC off…
There are two different documentaries. I recommend seeing both, but if I had to see only one, the MSNBC one is a lot more compelling. If seeing both, I think it would be better to see the MSNBC documentary first. This documentary should be required in high schools, perhaps to spare some people from cults.
The real joke is that the people who are considered ‘far left’ or ’socialist’ in the US are actually viewed as a bunch of reactionary corporate lackeys from an international socialist perspective.
There seem to be few Americans who understand this.
And that means what? Their views are any less unConstitutional?
I have no doubt MSNBC reports some decent stuff, but not when it comes to the white house politics.
Fair enough. I’m glad to see that in this thread, frankly. To read some of these comments, you would think MSNBC would skew a weather report!
Haha, yeah you would.
Only if it was delivered by Chris Matthews! (j/k)
Don’t you mess with my back-up fantasy, Dood! *contemplates hazing a vicious* Chris Matthews would be really babe-o-licious if he didn’t do that sucking spit noise while talking.
Not MSNBC — only Olbermann. I used to like Keith, first on ESPN and then when he struck out on his own, because he can lay on the irony with a trowel, and it works. But then, he got involved in this tiff with O’Reilly and now he really does believe his own hype, and he’s become almost insufferable. Ok Keith, we get it, you don’t like Bush and you don’t like the war. Can we move on now?
On point, Olbermann would certainly find a way to blame the weather on Bush…
LOL–I could easily blame Bush for part of the weather, but I’m bitter because I live close to a hurricane-prone area. Bush’s ignorance of global warming is given, but I also wouldn’t trust him to *report* the weather, either!
.
I’ll cut you some slack on your Keith Olbermann assessment. You may not have the same appreciation for his hotness as I have. …And that’s okay.
Hehe like I said at the bottom of these comments, I’d more concerned that Maria Bartiromo stay on the air (CNBC) than Keith or Bill or the rest of them — Maria *is* The Hotness.
And boy does she know her economics. 
LOL!! I’m not familiar with Maria. (I’m usually crying during economic reports, so that figures.) I’m just glad you didn’t say Contessa Brewer–ew! X(
Speaking as a “Libbie”, as you put it, I think the Fairness Doctrine is a load of crap. The new administration has more important things to do than pass bullshit legislation like that. It’s a slap in the face to free speech and could come back to haunt them later.
As I understand it, the Fairness Doctrine didn’t limit anybody from saying anything. It just mandated that opposing viewpoints should get equal time. How is that censorship?
Am I wrong? I thought it was only an anti-monoply action against mammoth airwaves giants.
No all it says is that opposing viewpoints get equal time. Others have proposed breaking up the conglomerate ownership of stations, as an anti-trust type of measure, but it’s not the same as the fairness doctrine. The ownership thing isn’t about regulation, it’s more about allowing competition back into the market. People know there will be a market for progressive programming if they could only get on the airwaves. My link shows at least 5 progressive talkers in the top 15 ratings, and they already do this while being on far fewer stations!
So if it is just to give equal viewpoints equal time, why does it really only effect the one Conservative dominated media outlet?
If you truly believe what you are saying, then you need to get your head out of certain orifices.
It affects all the media, but talk radio is used as the example because it is the most horribly skewed imbalance. Read the rest of my posts. I can back it up. Better yet, do your own research and you’ll find it’s true. I have my head on straight. Seeing as I can provide evidence and you can’t, you’re is the only head that’s hidden either in the sand or somewhere else dark. Denial doesn’t make something untrue.
Denial doesn’t make something untrue. It DOES affect all media. The example of talk radio is used because it’s the most skewed of any medium. I can provide evidence for this. Or you could do your own research. What I say is true. I linked the study about talk radio. Resorting to insults doesn’t lend credibility to your arguments either. Just so you know.
It does affect all media outlets. The reason the talk radio example is given is that it’s the most horrifically skewed medium. It really is closed to 80/20. Denial doesn’t make something untrue. Also insults don’t lend credibility to your argument.
Actually, it doesn’t affect anything:
“The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. The United States Supreme Court upheld the Commission’s general right to enforce such a policy where channels were limited, but the courts have generally not ruled that the FCC is obliged to do so.[1] In 1987, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation.[2]” – Wikipedia
First, it says nothing about day-to-day blatherings from either side — I don’t consider much of what Bill Cunningham or Al Franken have to say, as “matters of public importance”. Second, there was never any obligation to enforce this “doctrine”, apparently.
So, clearly, all of you complaining (indeed, debating) about the “fairness doctrine” are 100% full of fail.
(p.s. why can others post links, yet my posts with links in them get tanked?)
A link in the body of your post will wait a while before appearing due to the PK filter.
You can put a link in the URI field when writing the comment, and this will not get delayed. But make sure to include “http://…”.
Got it, thanks PiMan!
I have replying to your ps question, but it is caught in the filter because I used the letters ptth (in the opposite order). It will appear soon enough.
So you’re going with the letter of the law definition instead of the spirit of it. Nice spin. If that’s the case, why are Right wingers so terrified of things like this?
Well, Minerva, you’ve been spouting off about it as if it were policy, but apparently it isn’t, and hasn’t been for 21 years. I thought I’d point out that you (and everyone else here who keeps acting like it’s current governing policy) are quite uninformed onthe matter — it also brings into question the validity of any arguments raised on the basis of the fundamental applicability of the former doctrine.
I’ve been talking about market accessibility, not the fairness doctrine the majority of the time. Stop tearing people down and assuming their opinions and information are without value. I am not uninformed. You are putting words in my mouth on things I talked very little about in order to tear down my credibility.
Except that when you have used it in an argument, you either conveniently forgot that it’s not actually policy, willfully ignored that fact, or simply didn’t know it. As such, any argument put forth based on the Fairness Doctrine, has to be suspect. So if your credibility is threatened in any way, it’s not because of anything I’ve said, but instead because of what you’ve said.
I’m not tearing anyone down. I’m simply demanding actual intellectual honesty in a debate. I don’t think that’s too much to ask…
You know, you say you aren’t calling me stupid, but continue to thow barely veiled insinuations like “or simply didn’t know” and throw in phrases like “intellectual honesty” as though I have none. Perhaps I was supposed to be too ignorant or unintelligent to notice?
Go ahead keep the blinders on. But if Progressive talk is so doomed to fail, like you think, why are People like Rush being so vocal against it? It’s inconsequential, right?
Except that it’s not. It’s growing and conservative talk monarchies feel threatened, and they have people like you to spread their gospel. You say you want to have a discussion, but all you’ve done is tear me down, hack at my credibility present no facts and not listen to the counterarguments,. Your response is to tell me I’m wrong over an over again, without any contextual facts to back it up. I don’t know why I’ve wasted my time.
“It’s inconsequential, right? ”
Since when does Air America have a RIGHT. It’s a freakin’ BUSINESS. If it can’t sell airtime, it deserves to fail. Just like all of these banks and others responsible for the sorry state of economy.
I’m onto a sneaking suspicision that you probably think that Economic Justice is written into the Constitution like that fool Bruce Springsteen.
@battlecry You obviously didn’t read much of what I actually wrote. nobody said anything about a right. I used it in the context of “it’s inconsequential, correct?” The market is supposed to be free, correct? It’s not if there’s someone who can’t access it. Put your finger back in your ears, stop taking what people say out of context and sit in your corner drinking koolaid. you might get less angry that way.
@Minerva: btw, the last statement in this post, “you” was directed at the thread at large, not specifically at you (Minerva) personally. It wasn’t a typo, in other words.
Ok, real quick here……….if Liberals want a slightly less slanted medium, then they need to get together and make something that people want to listen to.
-
Oh, wait, wasn’t that the same argument thrown at Conservatives on this site about the unbelievably slanted number of LOL’s on this site? Hmmmmmm…..will the Fairness Doctrine make PK post more Conservative supportive LOLs?
-
-
I’m done trolling, Minerva. It just irritates me that it’s OK to say that a severely biased website isn’t uder the same rules as a biased radio station, or even a biased medium. If you want more liberal radio (and I say ‘you’ in the general sense, not directed specifically at you, Minerva), then fricking make one that will last longer than Al Franken’s aborted attempt at radio.
There are a bunch of hosts that have been on the air for several years now. Randi Rhodes, Ed Schultz for a couple examples. I could go an look up some more if you want. Ed Schultz is consistently ranked highly in talk radio rankings. Here’s the Talkers heavy hundred. He’s number 8.
Also, we’re talking about market accessibility for the most part, not fairness doctrine. Conservatives have the same amount of access to this site as do liberals
I’ve read your other comments. You’ve done a lot of work on this topic, and it shows!
Are you in the communications field?
Not anymore, but I did take a lot of media classes in between my group dynamics and industrial psych in college. I also interned in radio promotions back in the day. *feels old*
Uh, oh. You’re saying “back in the day.” You’re one step away from “kids these days.”
Just out of curiosity (and no malice intended), what sort of career have you been able to create with those credentials? Seriously, just asking — I can’t think of more than one type of job where “group dynamics” and “industrial psych” can come in handy.
Don’t insult my intelligence. In this job market, it has little application. i am aware of this. I’d like to kick a few guidance counselors as they never seem to advise you properly to take career choices where you’ll actually make money. That said I do indeed have a bachelors degree with a respectable GPA and graduated at the top (literally) of my high school class.
Thanks to this economy though, I can’t make more money or find a better job without going back to school or catching some sort of lucky break, and I can’t afford to go back to school without making more money. It’s a catch 22.
I wasn’t trying to insult you or your intelligence of anything of the sort. I was simply curious (since you had voluntarily introduced the information). I am truly sorry to hear that the advice you got back then, has basically fucked you in the current job market.
“You’ve done a lot of work on this topic, and it shows!”
Well, I’d say that she has a lot of opinions on the topic, and *that* shows, but that simply makes her no different the rest of us here.
I never claimed otherwise. I am more informed than you are on the subject it would seem than you are though.
Well, I haven’t said that *you* made the claim, as my reply was to rhorho. I’ve provided the factual backup for my statements, but since you don’t like what the facts say, you’ve simply ignored them. As for informed, I’d say you are more in tune with sources that tend to back up your position and preconceived bias, , than on the matter as a whole.
Actually, you have produced statements to back up your argument, while ignoring the fact that Minerva’s statements actually effectively counter your argument.
Repeating your argument in greater detail when it has already been countered does not void the counter argument. It simply gives the impression that you have your fingers in your ears, singing ‘lalalalalala’, as has already been stated.
If you actually address the counter arguments (such as the effects of fiscal management decisions vs popularity of product) then you may gain some credibility.
No, I’d say Minerva has more informed opinion here than most, and that isn’t because I necessarily agree with her, but that it’s clear she has a clear context and can back it up if challenged unlike most here, who tend to have on opinion as an article of faith or piece of political dogma… TBH she’s too damn good for this place and the likes of us…
Thank you fester and rhohro
Huzzah! (I translated that word from American to English for you.
)
There’s hope for the colonies yet!
I’m saddened that a sincere compliment has been twisted into an insult.
You may have made it sincerely, but you mistook “strong opinion” for “expert knowledge”, and that’s the mistake I am trying to correct.
And what give you the right to “correct” Rhorho? She can admire anyone she damn well pleases and it’s no business of yours. Your argument is with Minerva, please keep it that way until Rho has some actual contextual posts you can respond to. It’s unfair in the extreme to take a compliment meant for another person and twist it to fit your agenda.
I said neither “strong opinion” nor “expert knowledge,” full stop. I said “You’ve done a lot of work on this topic, and it shows!” You’re engaging in a strawman tactic. I gotta love the irony, as you used that very term–incorrectly–earlier on this thread!
@ Jane: Thank you!
@ Minerva: My undefeated compliment stands.
It may not be ‘expert comment’ but it’s certainly informed comment.
Her statements are not based on the bones of saints and articles of faith like a liot of comments, whatever the subject, but reasonably good research and clear reading around the subject, including materials that would not pander to Min’s inherent biases, and where she is biased she states it. (apologies for run on sentence)
Any fool can read material that simply panders to what they want to read.
I’d accuse that of 99% here, but not Min.
Thinking I am somewhere in Unc’s 75-98%ile, I agree.
The easiest thing in the world is to denounce someone of whay one does one’s self.
Hell, I’m living proof of that…
In psychology, that phenomenon is called “projection,” and it makes for fascinating study.
I don’t know, Xavier, sometimes a subject will come up that a person is well read up on. It’s not necessarily just an opinion. It’s ok to disagree, but it would appear that minerva may have a little bit more understanding then the average poster here.
-
rhorho, don’t be disheartened. After all, it’s just one person’s opinion and he did include a ‘wink’.
Thanks Fester, Rhorho, eddie. Be back later. Have to take care of actual responsibilities now.
*hugs*
“I don’t know, Xavier, sometimes a subject will come up that a person is well read up on. ”
I don’t disagree with that. As I pointed out, however, being well-read-up-on isn’t that useful, if all you read is what supports your bias and prejudice. I think you’d agree with that, wouldn’t you? She sees herself, for some reason, as advocating for the “little man without a voice himself” in this matter.
Reality, unfortunately, does not match the romanticized vision of the poor embattled progressive radio that she’s built up in her mind.
Yes, I would agree. I would hope though that if someone is going to become well read on a subject that they take into account both sides of the issue.
I don’t think Min is pandering to her own prejudices.
Analogy (OK I’m pissing in the wind but hey lets give it a shot)
Most people here will use an MS products on their PC. Some variant of windows.
Did you choose it, or simply use it since it was what you were given?
You take what you’re handed by large corps, Dell, HP/Compaq etc…. and thake and like it.
Large corps have things in mind
1) Making money
2) doing it cheap
3) ensuring no one questions them
Talk radio hits 2, and point 1 relies on point 3. The US media maket is pretty open, but in the end, the large corp knows it’s money relies on a specific mindset, and will set out to sell that.
Mainstream media in audio only tends to be right wing. TV less so.
The internet, since it is completely unregulated and open, has a pretty equal split of left and right with the more crazy apesh!t stuff being at the far ends of the normal distribution curve
To make the statements you’re making, it’s hard to decide if you’re really naive enough to assume that a large corp will not feather it’s own nest by every means at its disposal, or just don’t want to face that.
I’ve worked for a number of blue chips, and if they thought they could sell their employees for glue and pork pie filling, and it not affect share price downward they’d do it in a New York Minute. They will manipulate the media how they choose, and if their hand were to be stayed they’d cry ‘freedom of the press’ which really, their isn’t. Bread and circuses… Plus ca change, plus c’est le meme choise.
The meaning of the wink is debatable, but I appreciate your excellent “Eddie-tude.”
Gahhhh, n8 please tell me you are reading that over again.
Because everybody still can say whatever they want. It in no way limits what people can say. He is right. The conservatives are the only ones reading anything else into it, mainly because their pundits tell them it means something it doesn’t.
Not getting your point, TC… admittedly, I haven’t researched the FD much beyond what’s on Wikipedia, but the entry seemed reasonably complete. It’s not censorship to give the other guy his say.
I’m still head scratching over this equal time business. If I put “Trainwreck Chaser LIVE” on during commute time, and “En Eight covers the World” at 2:00 a.m., that would be equal time. Also, if I had a high ratings show going, and was told that I had to buy another show for equal time sake, wouldn’t I, for budget reasons, put the cheapest buyable show possible? Oh yes, and has anybody thought about the cost of this “fairness?” I say bust up the monopolies, and let the people vote with their dollars, just like on tv!
I think that could work. It’s the monopolies that are the root of the problem. It’s difficult to get anything progressive on the aiir if the stations are all owned by guys like Murdoch.
The dirty digger was coming close to having a monopoly in commercial stations in the UK, but UK GOV slapped him back (bipartisan)… he has a virtual monopoly in the commercial radio news, having sold Sky News in there below market…
To keep going with rhorhos example, You have Trainwreck Chaser live, who has ben very successful. He’s on from 2:30 to 5:30 during the afternoon communite home and is the most listened to talk station in the city. Fairness doctrine, for 1.30 hours, the man/woman talks about material prepared and to which everyone who is liberal and including some conservatives listen to.
His success and such is based on what he is talking about in the first 1.30. Now that he/she HAS to talk about a side that the audience doesn’t want to hear, you are losing customers and forcing speech….
To further the example, the taxpayers have to hire somebody with a clipboard and headphones to monitor the show, determine which statements are which, record them, report them to his/her taxpayer funded bureaucracy on high, which in turn fines the station for going “all 48/52″ on the peeps. The station, in turn, charges more for ad space, advertisers more for product, and so on.
In Europe, (or at least in Belgium), socialists and liberals are opposites in the political spectrum. Socialists are leftists and liberals are rightists.
Anyway there are almost no more “true” socialists left. Most of them have become social democrats (centrists), and communists have become socialists. In the UK this evolution has gone the furthest: Blair’s New Labour has almost become a rightist party.
After the election, I saw (almost) every political party trying to recuperate Obama. All of them said, if Obama was an European, he would have been a social democrat (leftist) / christian democrat (centrist) / liberal democrat (rightist).
I don’t know. Obama seems very right-extremist in some of his viewpoints. A political party with the slogan “Eigen Volk Eerst” (own people first) was convicted in Belgium because of racism. And what is one of the first things Obama wants to do? Protectionism…
Oh well, it seems like one of our banks will make the Washington metro go bankrupt, so that’ll teach Obama to take Europeans more serious. :-p
Okay, I’m in my blind spot here, I really don’t know what you guys are talking about, (except the Fox thing), so let’s not feed off of my ignorance. But I looked up on Protectionism, and would he maybe be doing that to, I dunno, protect us in our financial weakness? Or would that be counterproductive? Has he said publicly that he wants to invoke Protectionism, and if so, why? Actually, I’m going to look all that up.
I’m confused, though, because for all I’ve learned, it seemed to me that Obama was very foreign-friendly, and was well-studied on foreign policy? I’m very confused, because I supported Obama because of his international savvy and friendliness.
Please to have explanation? ;P
I think all of this hooplah has twisted off from indications that Obama wanted to renegotiate NAFTA. You’re rightly confused, because you’re catching this in its fifth generation of self-feeding freak-out, left over from desperation campaign rhetoric of yore. Say what you want about the right, but those guys can orchestrate a panic like nobody’s business!
I don’t know if I’d agree that New Labour’s rightist, but it’s strange how centrist things are getting. The Tories (traditionally right wing) totally moved left under Cameron. Here, (Scotland) the debate is whether to be; centre-left and part of the UK under Labour, centrist and UK under lib-dems or centre left and NOT part of the UK under SNP.
(Incidentally SNP are in power, which is mucking things up as they can’t do anything because they’re a minority govt.)
Back in 1979 I was Staunchly Tory. By the end of the 90s I found I was slight;y left of what labour was saying, not having changed my ideals or idea one jot
(I hope MT has a special hell for funding a boom on credit and phoney money, while selling us what we already had paid for… I never bought the snake oil they were selling, and I’m currently riding out this storm quite nicely. A pox on the Austrian School)
Wow you are on paranoid deluded little man. Fox shows both sides in what reality. They are as biased as any other news network. They are just biased in the opposite direction and, like most people, Conservatives like what they are hearing so “it must be true”.
Obama is a socialist? What is it called when you give $700 dollars of taxpayer money to help a business stay afloat, that seems pretty socialist. FDR was a socialist by all accounts, was he a bad president?
“if you tell a lie enough times, it becomes the truth” This is not a liberal sentiment only. The conservatives follow this doctrine pretty well themselves, take for example, Bill O’riely.
The idea is to make sure Americans get the truth, but I agree it is the wrong way. The only way to get the truth is to ignore what the news media says, liberal or otherwise, and do a little research. Get up, get out, and think for yourselves. This country has a bad habit of letting others think for us. Politics, religion, even at our jobs we are content to do what were told and nothing more. Work your brain, do something better, learn to analyze facts and debate intelligently with each other. We have all the potential in the world to be the great nation we claim to be, lets do something with it.
I am sorry let me get down off this soap box, I get a bit passionate about this stuff
The problem is that news time used to be a sort of “donated” time on the big networks. they did it as part of their public service commitment as part of the way the licenses used to work The airwaves they broadcast on are “public” after all. Now that news is sponsored, it’s become “infotainment” and so the more sensational, the better it is. There is little truth in “journalism” particularly on TV. Now the only “public service” [which I guess they're still required to give?????--correct me if I'm wrong] you’ll see is the PSA’s like “The more you know”
I find it hilarious (in a sad and ‘wtf are they thinking’ kind of way) that right wingers honestly believe that the Republicans are the party of truth and transparency when for the last 8 years there have been nothing but lies (including some very big ones) attempts to subvert justice, orders from the President to ignore congressional subpeoenas and a cynical manipulation of the populace through fear and ignorance and a steady degradation of their rights.
But yeah, it’s all about the ‘eeevil libruls’ trying to take away wingnut radio. Fox news is hopelessly conservative biased and anyone claiming they are ‘fair and balanced’ either works for them or is entirely blind to reality.
Now you’re just being logical, so they will stick their fingers in their ears and deny everything. “LALALALALALALA”
When you stop making up your facts and post reference articles for your punditry, then perhaps we’ll take you seriously.
When I lived in the States I used to watch FOXNews exclusively as I thought they were the only one’s providing objectivity to current events. In a recent trip back there in September (in the midst of campaigns and debates) I was almost embarrassed for their transparency. However, this is also true for MSNBC in their Liberal leanings. I was actually saddened that I wasn’t going to get a true and honest reflection of where things stood from any of them. I did think that CNN was trying the hardest to give both sides equal time though.
-
As for equal time on FOX, yes they allowed reps from the Democratic party to come one, but most of the time the person wouldn’t even get two words out of their mouth before being shouted down.
-
And I would like to qualify the above opinion as coming from someone who did vote for McCain. And for what’s it worth, it’s not much better where I live as most of the news seemed to be pro-Obama/Anti-McCain.
I read someplace that MSNBC was created sort of as a “counter” to fox. Don’t know if that’s true or not, but it would make sense. Also, whether it’s right or wrong, I can’t blame some of the international press for not wanting McCain. he was too similar to Bush in many eyes and after the state Bush [and his administration, and his protection of cronyism and other failed policies] brought the world’s geopolitical and economic concerns to??
Actually, it’s the other way around I believe. The first would have been CNN and then MSNBC came long just after. Fox is the youngest of the three. Now it’s possible that MSNBC changed their format to be a counter to Fox, that I would probably believe.
You folks are reminding me why I get my news from Jim Lehrer and NPR…
Oh and “the Beeb” (BBC). LOVE the accents!
I live in Australia and I love watching the news here. Especially when they say and pronounce words that I’m used to hearing in ‘American’. Something they do that I never understood is the dropping of certain words. For example, they may be talk about an accident and they’ll say that so and so was taken to hospital (dropping ‘the’ out of the sentence). Otherwise, I think I’m becomming Ozified.
Don’t mention that, you’ll get jumped on and called a total communist and socialist and even so far as an anarchist. Because apparently there is nothing more liberal than the NPR or PBS.
I <3 NPR. Maybe not so much Diane Rhem though.
For good or ill, NPR is the original liberal/progressive media outlet. Do you deny this?
That said, it’s an example of how progressive/liberal media can succeed, without resorting to name-calling, shout-downs and other general examples of incivility, that typically ruin the programming of both conservative and liberal media (for example, has anyone ever had an actual complete conversation with Sean Hannity on his show?)
Only a small portion of NPR’s funding comes from the govvies — the majority actually is split between private grants, member station dues and yes, advertising. Imagine that, a successful commercial liberal media outlet…without the politics-of-screaming-babies….
I’ll grant you that both ‘wait, wait, don’t tell me!’ & ‘this American life’ do have a liberal slant to them.
But NPR news, not so much–possibly in attempt to forestall the periodic funding slashes by conservative members of congress. I have heard far too many long segments of interviews and speeches by Bush and his minions on that station over the last 8 years to go with that ‘liberal’ definition.
Plus NPR news had an interesting time when one of their sponsors, Archer Daniels Midland, became a news item for bad behavior a few years back…. Just like any news org with an advertiser becoming a news target.
Marketplace, another NPR product, seems more conservative than liberal to me…
What about Science Fridays? You know how liberals love their science, what with them wanting it taught in schools and all.
I love the Friday Science podcast myself. Is the Infinite Mind still on or has it been replaced with Speaking of (on?) Faith? That’s what I get on Sundays now.
Have you listened to any progressive talkers? Not too many of them do that. You’ll always get a few on both sides, naturally, but a lot of them aren’t too bad.
I do deny that, just as I deny a liberal slant from the mainstream media. I don’t think that the people who cry “liberal slant” really understand what they are insinuating. And I say this as someone who has spent a number of years in media studies. The United States is a right of center nation. So things that fall any closer to center appear to be liberal, when it’s really not. Take off your political glasses when you watch things. Just because you don’t agree with the news story that is being covered, doesn’t make it any less of a story or any less relevant.
I honestly don’t understand why people claim liberal slant, especially in news stories. Could you please provide a modern example? And I mean a news story, not a pundit or talk show. Because for every story you tell me is liberal, I can play devil’s advocate and say that it’s conservative.
I would have to agree completely with this statement Christine. I live in Sweden (born and raised), and compared to the US I’d say that our current rightwing government looks quite centrist
It seems that people generally just compare a certain program with their own views and then say it’s biased if it’s something they disagree with, I’ve seen people claim “liberal bias” on news that does absolutely nothing but state fact (eg. train crashed – 50 injured)
Oh cry me a river…I feel assaulted every time I have to listen to Rush or Hannity or any of the other idiots that love themselves so much.
The funniest thing about this is that Fox News ALREADY follows the old Fairness Doctrine. For every conservative pundit they have on, they give equal time to a liberal pundit.
Don’t believe me? Watch for a week. I think you’ll be surprised just how much airtime liberals get.
As for any last words: “Yeah. Thanks for the ratings boost! Your administration will double our viewership!”
Liberals are invited onto FOX to act as target dummies. How often do they actually get to make a point? About as often as conservatives on MSNBC shows….
Joe Scarborough, Morning Joe, with Pat Buchanan and other conservatives as frequent guests. Try it. Once. It’s on MSNBC.
I see this as more of a tongue-in-cheek poke at conservative fear mongers who run around like their pants are on fire, screaming “Fairness Doctrine!! Fairness Doctrine!! Head for the hills!!,” or some such.
.
It can obviously be taken two ways, which may give some of the conservative bloggers some comfort.
And here I just laughed. Dammit, my sensors are on the blink.
*hugs pdq* S’up???
HA! Well said rhorho. I have to agree with one of the other posts too that Fox had toned down the hysterical anti-Obama rhetoric a wee bit on election day, having seen the writing on the wall. But never fear, I’m sure we can count on Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, O’Reilly, Coulter and Malkin to dial it back up. As I told my (conservative) sister one time “I think I saw spit coming out of the speakers!”
There’s something to be said for listening to Air America (yes, it’s still on the air with more stations added all the time) and then tuning to a conservative radio station and listening to the diametrically opposed opinions of the same bits of information.
WOW–Speaker spit at your house, too? Too funny–LMAO!! I’m in a red part of a red state (67/32), so no Air America for me–sniff! Funny, but NPR starts getting crackly about 2 miles from the city limits here. (I have often marvelled at how the city council pulled that trick…) I watch CNN, MSNBC and FOX. I think everyone should. Some of the posters here are clearly only getting one point of view. They do not see the forest for the trees, it’s plain. BTW, has it struck you as odd that we haven’t heard much from Ms. Coulter? I wonder if the GOP paid her hush money. I went to her website to see if she was in a coma I hadn’t heard about. She had recently dated blog spewage on there, so it seems like she’s alive…but how does one really know? *conspiratorial glances*
Maybe her medication stopped working and they locked her up. *wish*
LOL–or she hiccoughed during a venom spew.
You can certainly pay to get your Air America on satellite if it’s that important to you…
Yes, I’m planning to ask Santa for it. (I’ve been good!)
The thing is, if you regulate media you are taking away the freedom of speech via the press. It’s unconstitutional and it will certainly be challenged if passed.
Oh Samantha, how you pick and choose what is constitutional and what is not. Have you been living in a cave for the last 8 years? Or in a coma? Now all of a sudden the constitution is valuable. Guess what? The president elect knows something or two about *gasp* Constitutional LAW! ZOMG! Maybe he can start to undo what has been done with Bush & Co.
I never said I was a Bush supporter, a supporter of the PATRIOT Act, or anything else other than the fact that I believe the mainstream media is heavily biased to the left and that I don’t believe the media should be regulated as the Democrats are trying to push because it violates freedom of speech via the press. The MSM is biased toward the left and worshipped Barack Obama, never asking him questions half as hard as they asked Sarah Palin. If John McCain had been asked hard questions, danced around them, and then blocked a news station from any further interviews you would have heard about it everywhere, but the Joe Biden situation coverage was mostly confined to Fox News. If you were going to actually do something that benefits BOTH sides of the political spectrum and regulate ALL types of media and not just talk radio, I would STILL have a problem with it because it tells us what we can and can’t put on our news stations. It’s a stupid law and it makes me feel like we’re losing the freedoms that America is all about.
If you’re curious, I think the PATRIOT Act served a purpose at one point but it’s been taken too far and is now an invasion of privacy, I think Bush is an idiot, I think he has too much power that Congress gave to him, and yes, I do think all of that could likely be unconstitutional. But for now…You don’t know anything else about my political beliefs so I suggest you keep your idiotic assumptions to yourself.
If you want something balanced try the BBC.
They’ve even got neat accents! (This is what my dad’s students think about the BBC.)
blah blah blah. Nasty much, Samantha? Yur doin’ it way RIGHT.
And you’re doing it way LEFT
Actually, I prefer centrist.
You might prefer centrist, but ur doin’ it wrong
See the problem is, you guys have no idea what center looks like. If it’s left of the far right, it looks left to you.
Technically it would be, wouldn’t it?
Technically, but their definition of Far Left really isn’t from sane people’s perspective.
Oh well you didn’t qualify your statement by saying it had to be sane!
Sorry. I’ll do better next time. I’ll try to provide charts and graphs, as well as 20 references or so, on heavy card stock.
I love charts and graphs! I can’t wait..
Heh, heh. She said “heavy card stock.” *drools*
That’s the best point I’ve seen on here. Whenever I start thinking CNN is leaning too far to the right, I know it’s time to back off and do some gardening!
I might prefer good movies, but you did that wrong already.
What magazines do you read, and, what countries are in nafta, are not hard questions.
Media is already regulated and has been for quite some time. That is why, for example, you don’t hear the F-word on non-cable TV and why cigarette commercials no longer air on any TV and why Janet Jackson got fined for her nip slip. I’m pretty sure you also can’t slander or threaten anybody on the air or in print without running the risk of legal repercussions. There may be a certain point beyond which media regulation might be considered (or challenged as) unconstitutional, but the Fairness Doctrine was not labeled such in its previous incarnation, and only ceased to be in effect because Reagan overturned it.
Take away my free speech! For shame! That is fascism, if he shuts down fox news.
If Bush didn’t shut down NPR, then you can bet Obama won’t shut down FOX. If anything, his presidency will help them with material, right?
Bush doesn’t censor opposing views either
The fairness doctrine is a real threat. I personally dont want to listen to something just because its fair. Besides, npr hasnt been made to give equal time to extreme right wing stuff. If the fairness doctrine passes can i force you to teach creationism in schools in the interest of fairness? 
Hey there! I truly think the right is unduly scared over this. Obama does not back the Fairness Doctrine. The Bush administration has limited coverage of dead bodies returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan. To me, that keeps the public from being aware of the costs of war. I call that censorship, because the coverage could be done in a way that is respectful to the loved ones of the deceased.
.
As far as media goes, the mighty market will prevail. Radio shows and tv shows will exist as long as they have listeners and sponsors. It’s impossible to quantify “how” liberal or conservative any presentation is, after all. Ask you and me, and get two answers, right?
Obama may not support the fairness doctrine, but Nancy ‘i’m almost god and i can do what i want’ Pelosi does. (i swear i’m not trolling, but my phone only lets me stay online so long, and the cussing i do over some of the posts here scares the deer away from my stand
)
so you’re not trolling now but you were the last time?
There have been a couple of times i have trolled, but i tried to clearly mark it as such. Come on, minerva, you know me better than that! I have serious issues with the fairness doctrine, but it would take me an hour to type it out on my phone. Can we discuss it in more depth tomorrow afternoon when i’m out of the deer stand and back in front of a computer?
Deer stand? Reminds me of the song “30 Point Buck”!
Maybe Monday, I have to work tomorrow and pick my husband up from hunting after. Shotgun season opened today in NY.
Minerva! We’re both in NY! My hubby is hunting today, too.
Yep, Upstate and western NY is pretty rural once you get 10-20 miles outside any of the cities of big towns. And yes. it’s possible to be liberal and still eat venison.
;)
Does it involve a light air craft?
Ha, no. They go old school by sitting in stands/blinds with bows/shotguns, or stalk or drive deer on foot. Also, unlike alaska, we don’t have any bears and wolves left, so there is no shooting of those from aircraft either. (although the coyotes love the guts left behind by hunters I’m sure)
since earlier generations finished off the natural predators though, hunting season is necessary to keep the population under control. Otherwise there would be too much crop damage and people “hunting” deer with their cars on the highway. (more then they already do)
Don’t have wolves or bear left? Get out much?
In New York there aren’t wolves except possibly a few in the Adirondacks, which is not where I live. In my area there are none. There are also no bears except in the adirondacks and a few in the southern tier (Steuben, allegheny, etc, i f that means anything yo you. Those are a very few black bears. In my area there are only coyotes in the large predator dept. Also a few foxes, but they don’t hunt deer. You are assuming I don’t know what I’m talking about based on what? Did you even read the NY state part?
Enjoy your ’speedy beef’! Better shot by a good hunter than hit by a car, any day!
I don’t like venison AT ALL. But the boys do. My living room looked like Cabela’s for a stretch yesterday. I don’t know why they go upstate to hunt when I had a ten point buck right in my backyard this morning…Alas, no more bow season.
I was mostly kidding anyway, but forgot my “winky”
i wondered!! youre not usually quite so prissy with me
eddie, i doubt i’ll get a thirty point buck (mythical or otherwise hehe), but i did have a big ol boy behind my stand where i couldnt see him blow at me. i figure he was taunting me.
Taunting would be right.. the ‘pfffffft’ would have been the hint.
“The Bush administration has limited coverage of dead bodies returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan. ”
Oh WTF ever, please. As if the Johnson administration was perfectly up front and center about the actual human cost of the Vietnam war. If we’re talking fairness in this thread, let’s try at least to offer the *illusion* of being “fair and balanced”. (Eww, I just stepped in a FOXism…)
No, Bush didn’t censor, but the administration did, not so subtly imply, that disagreeing with his policies on things like Iraq made you somehow less of an American, unpatriotic, etc. How were the news people supposed to react if this was what they were going to be accused of by the sheep? Censorship can be subtle.
Good point! Remember how Cindy McCain described how Obama’s vote on a troop funding bill “made my skin crawl?” Her husband voted the same way on a similar bill! Both Obama and McCain voted against the bills for extraneous reasons (objectionable riders in both cases), but we only heard about Obama’s “no” vote. In the same spirit, the Bush administration systemically iterated only favorable information, leaving the press to scramble around for the rest. Senators and Congressman who questioned Bush’s decisions and procedures were promptly called unpatriotic, as you noted. Of course, that was mirrored in Palin’s famous description of “un-American areas of the country.” I truly miss that woman!
I think she was confused. The same night she heard about Obama voting on the bill she had penciled in some “intimate” time for her and John. Anyone could have mistaken the two.
Jane, that did it: You OWEZ me monitor wipes!! And no cheapies, either–extra absorbent!
Money well spent.
Jane, are you suggesting that Sen. McCain’s, um, “area” is un-American?
Well, I guess all I’m really suggesting is that the though would make MY skin crawl. If that’s unamerican then I guess I’ll own up to it!
Want an example of Bush Censorship? Three words: Flag Draped Coffins.
Huh?
It worked then…
He means they didn’t allow TV coverage of the “flagged” coffins of the dead soldiers coming back because it would remind people of the true cost of war.
Want another example? Only intelligence backing the foregone rush to war was released.
True.
It is, IMO, that Truth isn’t the first casualty war, it’s usually clubbed to death in an alley before the first shot is fired.
I hate that Tony Blair got backed into a corner. I don’t know enough about UK politics to fill a thimble (typical American), but I cringed at the sight of him at W’s side.
He was either dumb or was lying in his teeth hoping to get a lucrative state side job speaking after he resigned and came out as RCC.
As a comment, overt religiosity is a death sentence in British Politics… even the pro-lifer types like Alton keep God firmly out of the debate. Interesting considering there is no separation of church and state in the UK, and yet we can elect an atheist into power, and would regard people who invoked God on a regular basis as somewhat dangerous. Religion, like sex, is regarded as better kept private.
I don’t care about anyones personal feelings of faith, but get nervous when politicians claim to use prayer for decision-making. All too often, politicians making such claims do so to repel counter arguments:
Person X: “I prayed to God, and he told me to vote this way.”
Person Y: “But what about [valid point], [valid point] and [valid point]?”
Person X: “I prayed to God, and he told me to vote this way.”
Religion is important to many people. Truly faithful people should be upset upon learning of crosses being borne for photo ops and sketchy policy decisions. Yet, I’ve never heard a religious leader protest such abuse of religion. Perhaps the lack of protest is due to the impenetrable nature of such a defense mechanism.
The teaching of religion in public schools is not the same thing as pushing a political agenda and you know it froo. They are supposed to be separated by a wall, remember? besides, We don’t need the fairness doctrine per se. We need to restrict ownership so a single company can’t own more than half the stations in a given municipality. More diverse ownership would increase competition and Progressive broadcasting can compete just fine. It’s a huge myth, perpetrated by those that feel threatened by it (e.g. Limbaugh) and the owners of the stations they broadcast on. It’s not because of free market that the ratio is something like 80/20 in favor of conservatives. Think about that. it’s utterly illogical. That would be assuming that 80 percent of Americans are conservative, and we know by this election cycle alone that that certainly is untrue. If more progressives knew they had other options, they’d listen! Putting the programming on the smallest station with no promotion and then saying it’s the free market that made it fail? Please. They are only providing themselves with a (weak) excuse for not broadcasting it because of this “proof.”
Why is it a threat, froo? The FD, even if it comes back, doesn’t limit anybody’s free speech. It just allows the other side to have their say as well. And it’s not as if you can’t just hit mute or change the channel…
Exactly. It shouldn’t be a threat. Rush will continue to have the freedom to spew hate filled lies, and people will still believe him. Only IF the FD was brought back, the other side would be able to refute them. They would finally get to have their free speech heard. Not that it’s likely to be brought back in its original form anyway. At any rate, how is balancing from 80/20 to a more even market share a threat? The populace should be more accurately represented and have outlets for their viewpoints.
Don’t be stupid. No one is shutting down fox. The lol is based on the press conference where Obama didn’t call on the fox news correspondents.
Or any other company that speaks against him for that matter.
Good grief! Where do some of you people come up with your ideas? Obama shutting doewn FOX News ? Come on, ninny, get back in the real world and use your head instead of just your mouth. The way some of you talk would make the rest of the world think we elected a dictator and not a president. If that is all your ignorant rantings can come up with simply because your candidate lost the election then maybe you should consider taking a ’stood by’ for the duration until we get another ‘Yes Man’ in the White House. Obviously there are numerous Geo. W. wannabes out there waiting for their turn at the helm.
sorry chitty, but it HAS been an article of faith the extreme left among the Obamites wish to stifle right wing, largely AM radio and have so stated numerous times in the past. Given the fact Obama will appoint a new FCC chairman, the idea of censorship of right wing radio is not as far fetched as some would have you believe.
Personally, I do my own censorship of NPR, PBS, NBC and CBS and censor Fox to the extent I only watch NFL football Sundays and infrequently other sporting events as their new is as lousy as NBC, CBS or any other network, just a slightly different crappy slant.
Read my previous posts. You are buying into a huge myth. (yet another one foisted on you by huge corporations)
Why is it with you, that anyone who disagrees with you, automatically is brainwashed? Can no one, in your world-view, actually come to their own independent conclusions?
Nope. But there haven’t been any candidates proposing censorship, that’s absurd. Also, if you’re working with skewed information, you can’t reach an independent conclusion, other than the one you’re spoon fed. Furthermore, fxquant has been known to be an abrasive, far-right kool-aid drinker, on these boards for a while now. I have healthy debates with several of the republicans on here. Ask Froofrou, eddie, ema, etc.
This one actually is a big myth. Monopolies in media are just as bad as government directly controlling it. They ARE propagating this MYTH. The message is in the hands of too few, so the message is skewed. There is no logical reason that talk radio would be skewed 80/20 other than an ownership one. And before you throw free market at me again, it’s pretty hard for consumers to choose on their own when they only have a single choice available.
I think it’s hilarious how people tremble in fear of losing their precious echo chamber, as if the mere -thought- of having to hear an opposing viewpoint is a threat to the Constitution. So pathetic.
Seconded. Sheesh.
Their fear made obvious by the vehemence they are denying the evidence in my posts.
It’s only because people like the flavor of the kool-aid they drink. Why expand your horizons to a different kind when the one you have gives you a buzz?
I suppose that’s true. It’s sad though that you can throw fact after documented fact at them and they still scream back at you that their freedom of speech is being threatened.
Sounds a lot like the “I don’t want Obama spreading around my wealth” reaction that a lot of the middle class republicans I know have. Regardless of what facts you give them, they also have the right to ignore them. After all, “ignore” is the basis for “ignorance” and we are all guilty of it to some extent (though some more than others).
“Obviously there are numerous Geo. W. wannabes out there waiting for their turn at the helm.”
I’m scared now.
[hides]
i think the “joke” was about how for the last few weeks leading up to the election, FOX sort of toned down their liberal hatred and rightist ass-kissing. it’s as if they knew that obama was gonna win (which we all pretty much did), and realized that if the didn’t actually start becoming fair and balanced (as they claim to be, but have never been) they might begin to struggle as a network.
Fair and balanced only as long as ratings are up? Never.
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Thanks for drooling all over my monitor..
Actually, Eds, I’m beginning to take her side over many opinions on this string. Give her a chance, and you may come around to her way of thinking!
I’m just worried that the Democrats (not as much Obama himself but more Congress because that’s where laws are passed) are going to take away freedom of the press altogether. Fairness Doctrine, blocking interviews from TV stations that ask Joe Biden legitimate questions…not on a good path. The media should not be regulated like that.
It’s already “regulated” by big companies and conservative fat cats. They are just telling you something else and unfortunately people buy it. Having the PUBLIC airwaves dominated by just a few large companies is dangerous. it’s just as bad as any government control, because it leaves the “message” in the hands of just a few.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
So you are attempting to not let people see any comments to my posts? Stop wasting everybody’s time and space.
That’s just Anon being bored. Ignore him and he’ll go back to 4chan.
Sorry, sorry, got riled because I thought my last point was an important one, so I didn’t want it lost.
~
Bored is correct. However, I’m female and I don’t have a clue as to what “4chan” might be.
Well, whatever your reasons, you’re usually a good poster to have around, please don’t ruin it by going troll, it’s near impossible to come back.
Gd Poster?
Why, thank you.
No I haven’t gone troll, I’ve gone squiggly.
~
~
~
I’m very bored and the blue smartie’s back.
What’s “4chan”?
Google the term, and go to YouTube. It looks like a fun site!
4chan.org. It makes the rest of the internet look sane and civil by comparison.
It’s hard to come back from being a sock, too. I’m *still* picking lint out of my teeth!
Huh? You don’t really believe this do you? Tell me this is just a shameless troll on your part…
That’s cool! She gets the internet in her bomb shelter!
To which legitimate questions are you referring? Certainly not Barbara West’s stab about the ACORN debacle.
Twas brillig and the slithy toves
did gyre and gimble in the wabe.
All mimsy were the borogroves
and the mome raths outgrabe.
*sniff*
I can’t find my Vorpal sword.
I found the Jubjub bird quite cuddly, to be honest.
But beware it, my son!
I feel shunned!
Shun the nonbeliever! Shuuuuuuuuuuuuuun. n.
Now look what you’ve done! That poor little bandersnatch has been cowering in the corner ever since you shunned him. How do you feel now, Shunner Jane?
Snicker-snack?
Wanna galumph together?
Sher. Now who can we recruit for whiffling and burbling?
I’m up for willomying
The mome rath hasn’t been brillig that could outgrabe ME!
I was watching MSNBC before the election. I can’t remember who, but a reporter who was evaluating the candidates used words such as “idiot” “moronic” and “just plain stupid” to describe John McCain and Sarah Palin. Last time I checked, that is NOT objective journalism. Obama received so much more coverage than John McCain. The only media attention outside of Fox that I saw, was other networks calling him a second Bush, and mocking his VP pick.
His own party mocked his VP pick, let’s be fair. They also used words like Moronic. Also, it was FOX who aired the stuff about her not knowing Africa as a continent, etc…
Well, in all fairness she was an easy target.
I know! LOL
Damn that vetting process…
That’s what they call ’spinning the bottle’ these days?
Who knew?
I KNEW there was some sort of official system used, but hadn’t realized that was it until just now.
Backroom politics has always been interesting in that regard..
I bet Sarah wishes she hadn’t picked “dare” now, eh? Of course, in Alaskan politics, “truth” is not an option, so she was stuck.
Does that mean that in order to be vetted, Palin and McCain had to spend “90 seconds in heaven” by being locked in a dark closet?
I suddenly have potential sympathy for Palin. Make it stop, please?!
Ummmmmm, how about the knowledge that she will take any potential sympathy to pave the way for a run in ‘12?
Besides, you know that if that was the requirement she’d be like, “open up John and slip me some tongue!”
-
I think I just grossed MYSELF out with that one. :S
I would be worried if it didn’t!
It just impressed me that someone took the logical progression of my comment as I intended…
I would say that I spend my days with teenagers, but since they’re constantly busting students for giving hand jobs/blow jobs in the cafeteria at Lunch it wouldn’t be a fair assumption that I learned it from them. If anything, spin the bottle is WAY to innocent for them, unfortunately.
In my day it was the the “Careers” office… until they locked it.
You might be pleasantly surprised how much people ARE able to run with these things. We are silly AND serious here on PK.
I doubt it. The words ‘pleasant’ and ’surprise’ seldom go together in my life.
Well I can relate to an extent, as my house burning was certainly not a pleasant surprise, and the layoff,s and…. I try to soldier on though.
Yeah, I just got a surprise. My outdoor furnace/air conditioning unit just permanently borked. The new one is a mere $4100, just before Christmas, two major birthdays and January property tax time–Yippee! One pleasant surprise is that the new unit will be a *lot* more efficient that the old dinosaur. The other pleasant surprise is that it’s not that cold here yet. What are the odds?
243,000 to one.
-
-
-
-
You mean I’m RIGHT?
243,683 to one.
-
-
-
-
You mean I’m RIGHT?
Ah christ, sorry for the dup. Try to post it once and get “Duplicate comment detected”. This site’s network seems to be a bit fail today.
FOX certainly is not innocent in the name-calling wars. O’Reilly leads the charge in that one.
@ Matthew: Come on, now, Dear! A reporter doesn’t use words such as “idiot,” “moronic” and “just plain stupid” to describe anyone, ever, no matter what flavor his/her politics. You likely walked in on a debate, during which time one of the guests may have been railing. If not that scenario, then you mistook a pundit for a reporter. There’s a huge difference. Huge.
.
Actually, James Carville comes to mind on the “just plain stupid” quote. After all, he’s the author of the famous phrase, “It’s the economy, Stupid!” James Carville is a lot of things, but is not a reporter.
You people are fooling yourselves if you don’t think ABC, NBC, and CBS all were HUGE Obama leaners. Same goes for MSNBC. CNN leans a little left, but not even as bad as the mainstream. Fox NEVER bashed Obama at all during the campaign. O’Reilly asked him straight up questions in an interview. Is that what you liberals are upset about?
Really? Fox never bashed Obama? From the limited amount of time I got to watch Fox when I was in the States in September, it seemed that’s ALL they did. I truthfully, I always used to like Fox when they were ‘Fair and Balanced’. Now they’re just as unbalanced as MSNBC.
I like you eddie lol. You acknowledge the right slants, and the left slants. In essence the media is balanced. Some leftist, one rightist..
IDK I’m really fucking tired right now. TORCH RUN WHOOP
That’s just it though, Matt. You hit the nail on the head. In other mediums, the media is more balanced, talk radio is the example everybody jumps on because it is the MOST unbalanced of any format.
I dont really enjoy talk radio. The right wings on there are complete nutjobs. ANd the few leftists are complete nutjobs. It seems only the extremists get radio play
Meh, maybe some of the lefties are a bit wacky. Randi Rhodes is a tin foil hat wearer for sure, but occasionally she gives out good information. Stephanie Miller is nutty, but she’s at least a happy nut unlike Limbaugh and hannity woho are just angry nuts. She was a comedian for starters, so I guess that’s not unexpected. I don’t tolerate her for long stretches because her immaturity gets on my nerves. She has a few good zings from time to time. She coined Caribou barbie, after all. Personally, I like bill press, even though some people consider him a boring old man (he used to be on crossfire with pat Buchanan), but he tries to be fair in his presentation and treatment of guests. He was the only talker on the left that I am aware of that took NO stand in the primaries. He tried to let it play out without taking a side. I can usually tolerate Ed Shultz. (I mentioned his pro business segment earlier) He only gets on my nerves when he gets on his ethanol kick. He also has guests of both parties on, including fiscal conservatives. I find him to mostly be a moderate, although he calls himself progressive. Maybe you should check him out? Not suggesting you become anybody’s fanboy, just give them a listen now and then? It can be pretty informative. I try to get both sides of the issues. It makes my arguments better.
Ok, If i get the time, I’ll check him out. Guys like Rush and Hannity have some good points, the only problem is that they shout them very angrily
I used to like Sean Hannity a lot, but it seems that since his radio show got syndicated he’s more up himself. I actually feel sorry for Alan Colms at times, but I guess he likes the money which is why he stays on.
It’s called character based radio
I don’t know if Stephanie Miller coined these terms, but I first heard them on her show: Vampy and Grampy (Palin and McCain) and Tappy McWidestance (Larry Craig from Idaho who got caught in a bathroom soliciting an undercover male cop).
But I can’t tolerate too much of Stephanie Miller – she comes across as moderately intelligent but that Valley Girl voice! Gag me with a spoon.
This is why I listen only to KCBS out here in the Bay. It’s just news (and I’ve not detected a slant either way, yet), with punditry limited to “Face The Nation” on Sunday morn, and Charles Osgood (and even Charles Osgood typically steers clear of issue-baiting). Since they are a CBS flagship radio station, I’d have to disagree with tossing CBS into that left/right debate — they seem to me to be the most centrist, with ABC/FOX leaning right and MSNBC/NBC/CNN leaning left.
Having listened to steams… I’d agree with that assessment of KCBS.
in soviet america, news writes you
WIN
It might have been if Rondo knew what the word ‘Soviet’ meant
Okay, I’ll bite. What is Rondo, besides “round” en Espanol?
Rondo Hatton: an acromegalic (the correct spelling) actor who specialised in B-movies. He was The Creeper in the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes film “The Pearl of Death” (1944). The condition finally killed him in 1946.
He’d been a sports journalist priot to his film career.
Acromegaly is a disease of the pituitary gland, and is commonly adult onset. It causes the facial features to become distorted and enlarged, with some gross path. on the internal organs, specifically the heart (which was what got Mr Hatton)
Thanks for that. I was totally lost on that one. That poor man! I had no idea about the disease, his story, or any part of it. As far as the “soviet” business, I looked it up, and found the nickname for it is “the Russian Reversal.” You may already know that. If so, sorry!
The Feds regulating media content is scary. Why is it bad for the FCC to censor “wardrobe mishaps” but it’s OK for them to determine what is fair and balanced? Whoever controls the censor/balance button is going to slant it in their direction.
Please keep incompetent and biased government appointees out of this.
And when will someone liberal with the business and marketing skills get a talk radio show(s) on the air successfully? If there’s a market as everyone says there is, someone with enough smarts should be able to figure out how to capitalize on them and do better than the previous feeble attempts. Maybe someone from the Obama media team?
And who says everything on TV and radio needs to be 50/50. Seems the message still gets out in the end. And the internet certainly has an impact.
Because nipples will cause the fall of the Empire.
Oh, that explains the fall of the British Empire!
The Sun… one of our proudest achievements in the third estate… It’s not even good as toilet paper, since the ink comes off and it leaves you smelling slightly of meths.
Strange to say, the Dirty Digger who owns Fox also owns The Sun…
There’s not much he DOESN’T own. There was some flak about him acquiring the Wall Street Journal. Seeing as that might be a conflict of interest as they report on his many other companies. Talk about insider trading and market manipulation!!
You have to admire his dedication to money. He became a US citizen to get Fox News.
That’s preferable to having the Empire cause the fall of nipples.
Indeed
I’ve been saying all day that it’s the ownership imbalance. I think progressive talk would compete fine if they could only get on some stations. The top Progressive talkers consistently compete with conservatives even though they’re on less stations. If they could be reached in all markets, they’d be even closer in ratings. It seems that conservative really fear that. There ARE successful shows, but people don’t know where to look for them to expand their circle of listeners. I don’t necessarily think the fairness doctrine is the right answer. I will repeat again:
–It’s already “regulated” by big companies and conservative fat cats. They are just telling you something else and unfortunately people buy it. Having the PUBLIC airwaves dominated by just a few large companies is dangerous. it’s just as bad as any government control, because it leaves the “message” in the hands of just a few.
By limiting ownership, more competition will be introduced into markets that have been locked to progressive talk. I think they’ll do fine if we have actual competition instead of the fake kind the fat cats ad conservative pundits want us to think exists. Clear Channel alone owns hundreds of stations, and much of their programming is conservative. How does anybody break into a market with any other message if all the stations are owned by one company that doesn’t want your message heard?
“I think progressive talk would compete fine if they could only get on some stations.”
The problem is not stifling the opportunity. The problem is that the audience for liberal radio is tiny compared to centrist or conservative, and radio stations are in business to make money, not be “good citizens” or take on causes (both of which are “bad for business”).
You seem to live in this world you’ve created for yourself, where politics trumps the good ol’ fashioned American greenback. AS with everything else in human events, money > all.
Trust me, if there were money to be made in liberal radio, it would be everywhere.
You are making a lot of assumptions. I know you’ll say I am too, but the facts support that progressive talk is successful in many markets. One batch of arbitron ratings doesn’t give the whole picture. I still haven’t seen this by the way. Even assuming it’s true, how is anybody supposed to have the same ratings while on only 20 percent of the stations? I linked the trade publication a few times now. Here’s the one with the study of the ratios. Here’s another one:
http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=44
How do you explain there being 4 or 5 progressives in the top 30? They are making huge inroads and would do more if they could get on more stations. Ed Shultz is top 10. This is a trade magazine for talk radio of every kind. It’s simply ratings pertaining to the industry if you want to call it that. If they were available in all markets, it’s not hard figure that the top 100 would be more balanced between them. Shultz for example, consistently makes the top 10 while being on significantly fewer stations than Limbaugh. I don’t know why these companies don’t try the format on more stations. maybe they still believe the myth too. Maybe they figure it’s not in their best interests politically. i don’t know. I’m only saying you are wrong about there not being a market. (Incidentally, I googled progressive talk ratings, and the one that came up was an article discussing arbitron ratings from 2006. I don’t know if that was your source or not, but it’s outdated)
I had another response which will pop up eventually. (It had a second link in it) but here’s the trade mag’s heavy hundred. Why are there several progressives (like 5?) in the top 30 if there’s no audience? If they could get on more stations, the list would be more even I bet. Ed Shultz is in the top 10, all while being on far fewer stations than Limbaugh. My other response will eventually come up, but at risk of repetition, I don”t know why more of the owners don’t pick up the programming. There is money to be made. I think either they still believe the myth as perpetrated by people like Rush, or they feel it’s a conflict of interest. After all, i feel that progressive talk became a major catalyst in motivating people to become interested in the doings of cheney, etc. The info wasn’t on the mainstream media much, but people were calling their representatives about that and other issues being ignored by the Bush Administration. They have created groundswell. I also don’t think it’s the only reason, but I think it has been a contributor.
It’s hard for people to listen if there’s no programming.
So now that incredible surge in the penetration of progressive talk radio that you’ve been on about, now it doesn’t exist?
Which is it, lady? You’re starting to contradict yourself…
This is the last post I’m making on this topic, because it’s a complete waste of carpal motion trying to get you to budge from your prejudice, so here goes.
You really deeply believe what it is you believe, we get that. You believe, to the core of your being, that there are Big Radio bigwigs sitting in their ivory towers, suppressing every possibility of any progressive voice ever making it out on the airwaves. But there is a problem with your belief.
The problem is that it’s built solely on the foundation of a conspiracy theory. Now, conspiracy theories are nice for those that harbor them — you don’t ever have to prove them, because they can’t be proven.
Similarly, they cannot be disproven, so what I am going to do is offer an example, based on something that we *do* all know about — human nature — to try, as I said, one last time, to explain to you why you are wrong.
My example is a hypothetical conversation between a Big Radio account executive and the owner of the station/network/conglomerate/etc.:
Acct Exec: “Sir, this station across town is SLAUGHTERING us in PM drive time with this talent they’ve got — I can’t give away ad time in that slot on our station!”
Owner: “What sort of talent is this person?”
Acct Exec: “Some progressive or liberal talk show host, I don’t know, but people love him! We have GOT to get this guy on our programming”
Owner: “Not a chance. I’d rather continue to lose gobs of money in our most profitable timeslot than to give some pinko commie liberal mouthpiece a bully pulpit — no way in hell!”
Now really, Minerva, if you think that is a conversation that has ever happened in any for-profit radio enterprise in the history of man, then we really and truly are at an impasse — you simply are too afraid to let go of this romantic fantasy you’ve built up for yourself, and there is no point in anyone continuing to discuss it with you.
No, You’re putting words in my mouth again. Other people have also contradicted you, particularly Rhorho and stepnerd but you largely ignored them. Here’s another link from a grassroots petition opposing the same type of problem I mentioned before about lack of promotion. The actual facts, not the made up one, are on my side. You have a bad case of denial.
Sorry. Here’s the correct link.
Minerva, click my name for a neat term.
remember people, all the news networks are competing for ratings. so realy, “it’s only entertainment” -Bad Religion-
How about, “America’s Screwed” ?
To be fair, either the donkey or the elephant would have screwed us.
That reminds me, “Fairness Doctrine” is a tool to enforce “Political Correctness” or in other words, make sure the important stuff isn’t put out on the airwaves.
So you heard this from Hannity or O’Reilly? There are other solutions to improve the imbalance. Also, Fairness doctrine in no way limits what people can say obn the airwaves.
Again, for you, there is no independent though unless it aligns with your own? You alone know the One True Way?
Perhaps stevie actually arrived at this erroneous conclusion on his own?
That’s the point really. It’s an erroneous one.
No, your point is to try to pigeonhole anyone who has an opinion different from yours, as an unthinking slave to right-wing punditry. It’s getting old, btw, because you so miserably have missed the mark every time you’ve tried it.
Believe it or not, there actually *are* people out there, with opinions that do not match yours, that…get ready….wait for it….
Arrived at them on their own.
*gasp* !!!
You are the one who said the conclusion was erroneous, but it is of course, my fault. I have many discussions on these boards. They are productive most of the time. I have had several people on my side backing me up with other examples and information. You have been on your own, and yet I’m the stubborn one. That’s rich.
I thought Right Wing radio was popular since the target audience can’t handle talking pictures in colour…
Ahhhhhhh
Dude come on you know everyone on MSNBC, CNN and ABC would sleep with barack in a heart beat. I find it funny that when it comes to 3 vs. 1 FOX is seen as biased. I’d argue that it’s more middle then the other stations and I’m sure I could find multiple examples of bias on the others as much as you can on FOX.
Though I don’t defend Billy Riley, I don’t like that guy either.
Seth I really want to hear your thoughts on the Fairness doctrine.
Did I say Fox was biased? There’s something very wrong with a News channel that almost sues its own entertainment division over a cartoon, in case folk got confused and thought it was real news…. but I was talking about the level of AM radio (and Short wave) I get from the former colonies. Put it this way, it aims at a demographic that seems to be educationally subnormal.
But it’s still better then the lack of an attention span the Liberals seem to have when it comes to radio /generalization/. If there isn’t something or someone to watch, it isn’t worth the time. I don’t know about educationally subnormal, most of the people I know that listen to conservative radio (i.e. Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.) are mostly educated with college degrees. Admittedly there are those that have adopted a ‘Lemming Mindset’, but those are also the one’s you will see heading off to be followers of the latest fad.
-
*flame gear off*
TBH ‘college degrees’ don’t mean much… some of the biggest dullards I know have degrees.
However, as my acid test… How many of them think a dead jewish terrorist got better after three days that was really Friday night to Sunday morning, and is coming back to take them to heaven?
I expected as much from you. It isn’t just the college degrees but real world experience and not locked away on some campus. As for your ‘acid test’, what does that have to do with anything?
It has to do with belief in magic, really…. I notice you skirt the issue while playing bellicose offended offal… About as much as I expected of you.
I can now safely mock you, knowing you have nothing much worth listening to
Rather as you view me, in fact.
And exacly what issue did I skirt? The only question I saw was not relevant to the discussion, so it was dismissed.
-
As for being mocked, not a problem you pommie twit. I’ve been mocked my better people then you.
‘Than’… ‘better people THAN…’ the a key really isn’t that close to the e key
and still playing the bellicose card… keep it up…
*yawn*
See? No matter what the topic is you manage to connect it to how crazy christianity. Does anyone else not think this is a problem? Seth? Minerva? You two were quick to jump on me, why haven’t you flamed this guy? Or i suppose it’s ok for someone to be this obnoxious if you agree with him.
No matthew. I wasnt giving him special treatment. I have been considering saying something, but I’ve been undecided how to go about it. Seth I don;t think is here today. I may agree with him about the religion itself, but i don’t go around flaming individual christians. You know that. I try to be respectful to everybody until they just don’t deserve it anymore. I don’t think fester has passed that point yet, but I agree this topic is not the best time or place tfor this debate.
@ fester- seriously, I’m sure there will be other opportunities to debate separation of church and state and the detrimental effects of organized religions on another thread in the near future. Harassing Christians out of hand loses credibility for liberals. Don’t make us look bad. If you read back in the archives, you’ll see that I let froofrou and ema have it when it’s on topic, but they respect me at least a little when I do it, because I don’t attack the individuals, only the ideas.
Oi! What about me?!?!
-
*stumbles off to be in the lonesome corner waiting for ema and froo to return.*
I noticed you stood up to him. Good show!
Ok, fair enough.. as for UF, I personally think he crossed the line awhile back. But then, that’s just my opinion. I’m ready to classify him as the Liberal version of EP.
seconded!!!
Maybe, but for me the jury’s still out. Matthew started our like EP, but he’s become a reasonable guy most of the time who’s now willing to discuss instead of shout most of the time. maybe Fester’s still getting used to the mood/culture on this board? Wait and see I say.
Late into the discussion, but I’m thinking that nobody needs to be voted off the island, okay?
@Matthew: Minerva’s right, you are a much easier read these days!
@Minerva: I think you were right to kick religious discussion to the side, but nobody ever got back to the primary topic, yes?
@Eddie: I don’t think UF and EP have/had the same approach. In my experience, EP was aggressive. UF went off topic to an unwilling participant–that’s all.
yay
It isn’t so much the aggresiveness, it’s the trolling comments. I’m kind of with Matthew in that he latches onto something someone says (i.e. Christianity) and from that point onward it’s like his main point of focus. Unless there is some valid reason I should actually consider his opinions, I will just skip over anything he has to say.
I would call EP a troll to his face, but wouldn’t say the same about UF. UF’s focus may be misdirected at times, but trolling “intent” isn’t there for me. Of course, I would have had a different experience with EP than you, so that probably has a lot to do with our POVs, yes? Was EP ever fun?
Nope, EP was never fun and in fact, I was rather embarrassed quite often to be affiliated with the same party as him and MegaBob (no matter how distant our viewpoints were). My issue with UF is the off hand comments that are totally unnecessary. Minerva actually made the point earlier in a better way then I could. I’m not saying that everyone has to view UF in the same light, but this is how I see him.
I think you’re a bit biased Rho. I will say that UF doesn’t just regurgitate talking points like EP, and he’s not an incorrigible d*ck like megabob/miner/magnum/GOM 100% of the time either. In all fairness, though, he’s had his share of unfair personal attackes that if they’re not directed at you, then it’s easier to overlook.
If I may butt in here, I have to dissagree with eddie which I usually don’t do. I think EP was lots of fun, I used to have fun with him all the time but then I am more on his side of the fence in ideaology that. But, he never ever said anything really hateful to anyone like the kinds of things UF has said to froofrou and now to Jane and eddie. Oh he may have thown out a “libtard” on occassion but he was always about making a political point rather than attacking someone or holding up someone for ridicule.
I will agree with ema on this, EP and I were about as opposite as two people could be on viewpoints and he never insulted me personally, no matter what else we may have been arguing about. He also never said my opinion was worthless, as if I had no right to speak.
ema, you can butt in anytime! Your disagreement is noted, and I certainly don’t mind. I didn’t have any real back and forth with EP, it was more his hit and run tactics that I didn’t agree with. It did make debates with the ‘other side’ difficult at times.
Well, and I agree with that too. Look at me being all agreeable today!
At least your not caustic! ;P
that should have been a
@ Jane: I haven’t overlooked anything intentionally. I don’t go on every thread, and I don’t scan every thread, so I’ll back my opinion wagon up. I had a run-in with EP, so your estimation of my bias is valid.
@anyone: I’m getting hints that some don’t think EP was all that bad. What became of him/her?
It’s interesting…
someone can evince the opinion that capital punishment is fine no mateter hwo many innocents get topped as long as few guilty and yet one can’t say that you think that, overall, religion is less than bright…
Somehow, I think your priorities are screwed beyond redemption…
You want respect from strangers… earn it.
Thank you for offering more proof that you are really nothing more than a glorified troll
You’re still not seeing the line between stating your opinion and personal insults. I don’t have to agree with froofrou’s opinion (and for the record I DON’T) for her to state it, that is her right. What she did NOT do was personally insult you, or stereotype an entire group of people (i.e. religion). You were also completely welcome to tell froofrou that her OPINION was sh*t and to argue with said opinion. You didn’t leave it at that, however, but instead jumped in on other people’s response to her in order to insult her. And don’t act innocent and pretend that it started with that one thread, because you had been insulting her before that. And when someone (me) told you that you were being unfair you lashed out with more insults. This is not the behavior of a reasonable person, nor behavior that garners any respect. Like I’ve said before, if that’s what you want then continue on, but don’t act like you’re the victim here.
@Rho: At one time EP, although always a right wing talking point, was somewhat reasonable, knowledgeble, and would actually research things. If he was being too ridiculous you could call him on it and he would modify it somewhat. Right around the time Palin got the nod things turned a little nasty here on PK (on all sides, really) and as the election got closer EP fell back on his drive and run tactics that eddie talked about. He lost a lot of respect (what he had anyway) and I don’t think he’s posted since the election.
No it didn’t start with that one thread.
I thought she was an idiot, and said so. She then compounded that with ‘monster’ and ‘hypocrite’. How does one separate the view from the person?
I’ve stated that one can’t say that having an imaginary friend called Josh is dumb arsed but one can say the sort of murderous crap evinced by a goodly sized portion of the US population… no victim hood in that, other than you’re pointed head… just a statement of fact.
@Matthew: go die in a cold place alone, in great pain.
Fact is not the same as pompous asses opinions and bleak world view. You only dig yourself deeper. I think you are pretty much alone. And go die in a cold place alone in great pain, is no more than just plain trolling.
.
It’s your level, I was simply playing to it.
Now, please continue whining about how nasty I am…
oh and could you recast the first sentence into some semblance of English?
There’s a good chap…
@Jane Thank you for the explanation. I think I caught EP in the middle of his nastiness. I re-read what I had written, and couldn’t fathom why it had drawn such a harsh response. I joined late in the game, so I wasn’t aware that the guy ever had lighter moments. I skimmed threads for a while after that run-in, and never saw a hint of lightness around EP. I didn’t post again until the mood got lighter, figuring it just wasn’t ever going to be fun.
@Uncle Fester I know he called you a glorified troll, but aren’t you against the death penalty?
Simple math really.
Opinions of a pompous ass mixed with his bleak views of the world do not equal fact.
@rho: That’s all he is really. I am sure I am not the only one who views it that way
“someone can evince the opinion that capital punishment is fine no mateter hwo many innocents get topped as long as few guilty and yet one can’t say that you think that, overall, religion is less than bright… ” — Sorry to butt in again here, but listen Uncle Fester, I don’t think that anyone is upset with you because of the content of your comments, it’s your delivery. There is nothing wrong with what you just said above and is a perfectly reasonable objection. But you need to understand that you are dealing with real people on these boards and we all have feelings. We create relationships and begin to have affection for one another. We don’t like to see our friends trashed whether we agree with them or not. If you really believe in what you are saying, for example about capital punishment, then just argue your ideas and stay away from personal attacks, for example — “go die in a cold place alone, in great pain” is pretty harsh. You will have to accept the fact that some people you will never be able to convince and calling people names is not going to make your position look more inviting either.
Matthew’s in TX, he should be used to ‘harsh’… but he’s young.
As to the rest, you forgive people what you like.
and @MF
Since I don’t buy the idea that everyone is a sinner out of the box, and that we’d do a lot better without buying the ideas of a Bronze age tribe who killed everyone they ever met, warmed over with Greco-Romano Paganism wholesale is far from ‘bleak’
The nihilists who preach that crap while baying for death row, I’d say were nihilists. But you embrace what ever that keeps you from shooting up campus…
Well I wasn’t actually talking about forgiveness, that’s your business…
No the bleak part is where anyone who has a religion (apparently christianity is the only one that makes any illogical claims) must be this lost ignorant blind individual.
Seriously, just because you don’t believe it, doesnt mean you must dedicate your time to trying to convince people otherwise. should you succeed in swaying someone away form a religion, what have you really accomplished? Nothing
Militant atheism is just as bad as loudmouth christian nutjobs
Agreed with Matthew on that last point. I’m agnostic myself and have some very definite ideas about the rabid strain of Christianity (mostly stemming from my dad, who hails from that section >_<), but I haven’t seen any of that here in a very long time. Injecting vemon about religion into any and all discussions is just kind of irritating.
As for UF picking on froo…she was the first person that welcomed me onto the site, so I have a certain amount of affection for her. She’s one of my friends, and as with any of my friends, IRL or otherwise, I’m going to defend her. So she holds one opinion contrary to yours. Debate the opinion when appropriate, but personal attacks will get you nothing but contempt on here.
Contempt? Cool… I look forward to seeing some rather than whining nonsense you lot seem to indulge in… Seems one can hold any opinion save that certain people (and on here it’s quite a list) are idiots…
There’s a difference between holding an opinion and trying to cram it down someone else’s throat. Hey, look! I could have made a personal attack there but stopped myself. It CAN be done, after all!
Indeed it can…
ok then
I’ve already had my flame war with UF. Apparently if you point out his unfairness your opinion becomes worthless. I generally scan over most of his posts now.
Activate MegaB*tch powers !!!
*Beats GOM with troll stick* Back under the bridge! Jane is NOT a b*tch, mega or otherwise.
That’s just megabob/miner/magnum et al again. Please to ignore his sad existance.
It’s almost sad how incredibly stupid he must be to think he’s ever fooling us.
@rhorho: Is Jane talking to herself again?
@rhorho: Why, yes, I believe she is…
Paranoid schizophrenics often do…
Concur… a tad white bread from time to time, but she does her best
Ditto. It took one instance of UF shouting me down to avoid debating a point, and his posts (for me, mentally) are immediately binned.
Whipping out conversation-ending names in your first reply to me, I’d call that shout-down.
In fact, you couldn’t (and still can’t) rebut me with an intelligent response.
On gay marriage?
Oh I readily admit I’d misread you on that one…
you’re almost certainly correct and that it’ll got to the Supreme corut…
Unfairness in your opinion.
I have the attention span. But I can’t speak for the rest of the Liberals…
I am well aware of what they are saying on progressive talk radio. One of the coolest things on Ed Shultz is this segment he calls “recession busting” each week where he allows small businesses to call in and plug their products/services for free on his show for like a half hour or hour out of his 3 hour show. Progressives are often FOR small business, in spite of what some pundits tend to “suggest.”
You said something about attention span, but the rest was TLDR. Seriously, I never caught on to the Conservative = Joe Plumber thing. The campaign never indicated anything they were going to do to help him. Conversely, at least Ed Schultz may wind up helping a small business! Pretending that the Fairness Doctrine has wings, I wonder if Schultz would continue to use that suddenly-precious half-hour “for the little peeps” in equal time days.
It was a method of smacking Obama with something. Basically, Joe the Plumber isn’t actually the Poster boy of the mercantile class that the Republicans think is their own…
You’re right. The GOP didn’t have time to vet Mr. Plumber, or I’m sure they would have chosen someone else. Mr. Plumber’s launch was timely, though, so they had to work with him, regardless.
Joe the Plumber as a symbol for middle America was really just insulting.
The semi’literate free loader calling the Democrat ‘Socialist’ when he wouldn’t know a socialist if it fell on him.
I’m not expert on political science, but my read on the McCain continuence of Bush’s domestic policy smacked of a rise to oligarchy (sp). Any time I tried to fathom WTF a fake plumber had to do with feeding oil companies made my head asplode.
.
The further JTP absurdity for me was hearing Palin site JTP’s opinion of socialism to cheering crowds. *Even she* had to know that she was baiting, because she didn’t present it as her own opinion.
.
Living in a 67/32 GOP county, I run across a lot of opposition. I had two Obama signs stolen from my yard, and a colleague told me to my face that “Obama is a G-D terrorist.”
awkward sentence #2 FAIL–Sorry!
To think I was told I wasn’t welcome in TX.
I’d not want to go to the third world inbred hell…
I’m a native Texan, a self-proclaimed left-wing nut job, and so mutty even the neighborhood curs shun me. There are forces around that would impune my existence, but, all-in-all, I love my home. That said, when W comes back, my tv’s going to go all staticky. HATE that part…
uncle fester made me lol with a full cup of hot coffee in my hand, my mac balanced on my lap, and a mouthful of previously mentioned hot coffee.
See… you get the joke
I LOLed, then felt guilty.
Feh! So disappointing…
Oh *shock* you’re disappointed in me???
Well, take a number and get in line (queue). Remember, no pushing!
Only the guilt bit…
I was clear on what part disappointed you. The guilt comes from the fact that, because of the prevailing political climate in which I live, 8/10 of my local friends, etc. fall into the right wing category, including my parents. I love my peeps, so mockery, while fun, turns cold quickly, like scrambled eggs. I’ve earned your disappointment, so I’ll take it.
People, you don’t realize one thing. A resurgent fairness doctrine will have ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT ON FOX.
Fox News ALREADY gives EQUAL time to BOTH sides. For every conservative pundit they have on, they give equal time to a liberal, or haven’t you ever seen the vitriol coming (unopposed, mind you) from all those Clinton-era folks like Bob Beckel, whom they have on DAILY.
It’s the MSM who ought to be quaking in their boots, because any new fairness doctrine will force all of them to give more time to CONSERVATIVES.
Think really hard about it before you argue with me. Just watch Fox News for one week and tell me they’re biased. You’ll never be able to do it.
You’re right. I could never watch Fox News for a whole week. It would kill me.
No, it wouldn’t kill you. It would simply make you wish you were dead. Entirely different thing.
Obviously, neither of you has ever watched enough of Fox News to see through your liberal-colored bigotry.
If you’re the future of America, I truly fear for this nation.
UF is a pom not American.
and Fox is a freak show for the most part. Even Sky News is better… and that’s Fox UK more or less…
My liberal colored bigotry? FAIL. Like you are the authority on liberals, the visible spectrum of light, and bigots? Please, build a bridge and get over yourself.
I don’t watch Fox because it’s just not news, dude. Having a report on the myth of global warming and then showing a paid commercial for drilling in ANWR is not news, it’s a paid for advertisement. The same with having a black Senator on for an interview on topic x and then blindsiding him with topic y. Topic Y had to do with Reverend Wright and the only things they had in common were *gasp* that they were both black. It’s not news, it’s entertainment. Coulter, Hannity, Rush – not news.
And we are the future of this country, get used to it. I’m young, I’m educated, I’m affluent and I VOTE. Every election including Village Trustees and School Board. I’m such a commie pinko liberal – I have family active in the military, retired military, law enforcement, my pop’s a fire commish, I own a gun, my husband hunts, we own a small business. Yeah, we’re hard core liberals, my lot.
Talking out’cha ass – yur good at it!
*snaps fingers in uppity liberal fashion* Wow–I think it and you type it. Get outta my head!!
…going…SLAM!
It’s sort of Being John Malkovich without either of us having ever been John Malkovich. Is that too liberal of a movie reference?
Yes. I command that you watch a Charlton Heston film post haste!
I was thinking Deliverance or Apocalypse Now.
…or Joe Dirt.
Oooo. “Sir John” admitting he’s an American FAIL
Right, because Colmes always gets equal time on Hannity.
Okay, I’ll grant you that one, but everyone else on the channel is generally fair. Even O’Reilly will shut down a conservative spinmeister with the same vehemence he shut down Barney Frank a couple of weeks ago (which was the most entertaining thing I’ve ever seen him do).
Yeah, shut-downs are what a civilized debate is all about…although you did characterize it correctly: entertainment.
LOL @ AdmiralSirJohn for thinking that Fox News is actually a real TV station… LOL! C’mon man. Tricks are for kids.
Have you ever TRIED watching it without your liberally-biased preconceptions? If you did, especially during the day (when they air NEWS rather than COMMENTARY, which they only air after 8PM), you might actually be surprised.
What’s going to surprise you is that I used to watch Fox News religiously – more so than I now watch CNN. In fact, Fox News was my deFacto news source right up until I noticed the uneasy imbalance over the last eight years. That’s when I decided that they were an expressly Republican station. It was only afterward that I discovered other folks who also watched Fox and had the same opinion.
That cemented it for me. I wasn’t seeing things. Fox News is right aligned.
I don’t dispute that Fox tries to be fair and balanced. But they fail miserably at it. That’s when I realised that the only reason why I liked Fox News more than CNN, was simply because the characters on Fox News were far more entertaining. I don’t mean that as a dis. They really are more entertaining. They’re better actors than those folks at CNN. CNN people are rather boring by comparison – but that’s because they spend more time giving it to you straight. That’s what News should be; not entertaining while pandering to the right or left.
I have since changed my source of entertainment news and replaced Fox with John Stewart’s Daily Show. John Stewart is a lot funnier than Bill O’Reilly and at least he doesn’t try to sell BS on the air with a straight face. John Stewart also has a talent for sniffing out bull on both Fox and CNN. However, Fox has provided more fodder than the latter, simply because of the extremely conspicuous nature of its bias. So The Daily Show is now where I get my entertainment news. I’ve since completely dropped Fox News from my channel line-up. I’m not paying any money for pretentious BS.
Concordantly, they should rename that station Faux News, just so that people know right away what they’re paying for.
I used to watch FOX. Then I got tired to trying to keep up with 4 people shouting over each other, no one could be understood, and no point or conclusion was ever reached (only saved by the commercial break). Then I tried MSNBC, and found the exact same thing (sometimes the exact same people) going on.
Now I don’t watch TV at all (beyond the occasional major golf tournament), and actively seek out my news on my own (thank you Sprint for my AP news feed directly to my PDA phone!) on the Interwebs, or get it from KCBS on the way to/from work every day. KCBS provides an added bonus, in that they simulcast Face The Nation and 60 Minutes.
NOOOOOOOOOO THEY CAN’T SHUT DOWN FOX.
All the blonde babes are on there! What will the menfolk do?
Also, people, let’s be honest. FOX is heavily conservative, while the rest of the media is heavily liberal. So just pick a network, quit your bitching, and get back to LOLmaking.
I’d be more concerned about them shutting down CNBC — Maria Bartiromo, the original money hottie!
True. You just can’t beat the original, eh?
Did Rahm Emmanuel get a haircut? Before he accepted (unless I was looking at the wrong pics) he had this bad Tom Synder 70-s era poofy-doo…
Spelling fail…Tom Snyder
Rahm Emmanuel has had a lot of haircuts.
Sorry, couldn’t resist!
*rimshot*
and *groan*
Well, I actually had my own radio show for a little while. Yep it’s true.
Well, I was a dj on the campus radio station and the most talking I ever did was “Howdy Ags, this is matthew on KANM, the college station of college station” lol
The Tejas A&M version?
Yep. I played music
I think I may still be on the list, but i haven;t been able to do my show for the last few weeks.
Ah, in that case..
-
Q: Know why guys don’t take their girlfriends to the football games?
A: They keep grazing on the field.
-
Q: Did you hear about the Aggie at the stop sign?
A: He’s still there.
-
Sorry, couldn’t resist..
Dang it.. that should have Aggie guys..
What do you call an aggie after graduation?
Boss
Of the sheep herd…..
Ba-aa-ah!
I took my girlfriend to a game when she came up here. She is also a vegetarian, but she didn’t graze on the fields.
At least our mascot isn’t a hamburger…. SAW EM OFF!!!
Why do Corp T*rds at A&M wear tall boots?
They drop the sheep’s rear legs into them to hold them still ! BooYa !
You know you’re getting near A&M when you pull off to the side of the road and the sheep automatically back up to the fence !
Oh Bloody Hell! You’re an Aggie?
I heard they don’t have ice in College Station.
The guy who knew the recipe graduated.
*rimshot*
Yep.
Fightin’ Texas Aggie Class of 2012
You have my heartfelt sympathy and I truly feel your pain.:P
I tried to go to A&M but they said my IQ was too high…..
TOTALLY NOT PC ALERT!!!
One time, I saw a one-armed Aggie up in a tree, so I waved at him.
Texas A&M: Where the men are men and the sheep are afraid.
Where they not only Major in Animal Husbandry- they practice it!
I Actually major in Biomedical Sciences.
You do realize you never should have admitted to goingto A&M, right?
Yah, but I am actually damn proud to go to the school USNews ranks A&M the #64 of all colleges, public and private in the nation(out of about 1400 schools reviewed), and #24 out of all public schools.
Thanks and Gig’em
Actually, I like A&M. I know a few people that went there and loved every minute of it!
Yeah. And those rankings are based on the information that the colleges themselves provide and partially based on donations received from alumi. It’s not truly a level playing field.
Obama’s win of the presidential election is ironically the best thing for FOX news. Their demographic won’t change the channel for the next four (maybe 8 years).
Sorry if this has already been said, I got impatient around the 300s.
I’m just surprised at so many people wanting the “Fairness” Doctrine. First off, I do not condone having the government tell a station what to say. That is really scary. I do not listen to right-sided radio. I can’t stand it at times when my mother does. However, I would not be in favour of censoring them and/or changing the views. I am in favour of getting an AM station for a left-sided point of view if you so choose. You can find a station for them. You don’t have to dismantle an already existing one because their views are not like you’re own. You don’t have to watch/listen to these things. Change the channel. George Carlin once said (I am aware he is a comedian that has passed away but he had a very sharp mind and this is paraphrased) Those dials on the radio (can be for T.V. too) they are to CHANGE the channel. We shouldn’t have one uniform thought. Let us all think the way we want to. That’s what keeps us as individuals. Let us not be swayed by the thought that we should all be “Fair”. Life has never been that way and what should change it now? If you want more left-sided radio stations or even center radio stations, petition or come together and ask for more. Let us not try to bring down the ones that don’t agree with us. We have to work together as different people but in harmony. That is what is so great about us as people. I am sure we all have loved ones that don’t agree with us. I am sure we wouldn’t want to change our loved ones for the world (unless you are in bad relations with them). I hope we can all try to work together from now on.
Did anyone read 1984? Watch V for Vendetta? The government (especially only one side of the government) controlling the news is scary! What happened to freedom of speech?
Last words before what? The FCC shuts the network down? It gets extorted into toning things down?