RE: Should Government Subsidize The News?

RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

kittinSol -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 12:40:16 PM)
Then tilt the bias in your favour instead of bitching about it, for crying out loud.

CruelNUnsual -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 1:17:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Then tilt the bias in your favour instead of bitching about it, for crying out loud. I dont bitch about it, just refute the claims of those who say it doesnt exist. And you might want to take your own advice and stop bitching about Fox.

kittinSol -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 1:20:55 PM)
I laugh at Fox, I don't bitch about it [:D]. Fox, on the other hand, keep on bitching about everyone else who doesn't follow their agenda, whilst lying blatantly about fairness and balance... so I have a pretty good idea where you got your opinion from. All boxed up and ready to go for you [8D] .

philosophy -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 1:52:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual When opinion is disguised as news is when there is a problem, not in clearly labeled opinion sections. ......LOL.......i really did laugh out loud at this. BTW, aren't you the one who defends FOX news?

CruelNUnsual -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 2:09:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual When opinion is disguised as news is when there is a problem, not in clearly labeled opinion sections. ......LOL.......i really did laugh out loud at this. BTW, aren't you the one who defends FOX news? No, I'm not. and kittin I consider calling Fox "cunts" as bitching about them. If you would like to classify it as whining, feel free.

Crush -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 3:30:41 PM)
Heck no, they shouldn't be funded by the government. That way lies a variant on "Pravda", the U.S. Edition(s). Some newspapers are thriving and some are dying. Evolution in action. Those that adjust to the changes will survive and find sources of income. Other media, such as the "New Media", will continue to prosper, die, grow,evolve. We've come along way from alt.news and alt.sex and sci., etc. , the original net "news" groups.

SilverMark -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 3:43:42 PM)
The idea of the media being funded by the government is against the basic thoughts of a free press....not a good idea!...let them go to the web and sell ads for their on-line content. As a person who once spent thousands of dollars a month on print advertising it has become useless as a way to generate customers for most businesses. If they wish to have subscribers on the web see if the business model works and they have a viable operation, if not, some other media will fill the void.

kittinSol -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 3:56:31 PM)
Fox are cunts. That's not bitching. That's a fact. In the order of things, if you like.

CruelNUnsual -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 4:44:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Fox are cunts. That's not bitching. That's a fact. In the order of things, if you like. No thats your opinion, and it is bitching. Now youre whining.

Crush -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 5:03:15 PM)
Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. If they did fund it, theoretically they wouldn't be allowed to make any requirements about the bailout funding....oh wait, we do that with TARP already.... -------------- http://158.130.17.5/~myl/languagelog/archives/001169.html http://web.missouri.edu/~milyoj/files/Critical%20Review%20offprint.pdf http://158.130.17.5/~myl/languagelog/archives/001169.html http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001301.html

rulemylife -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 5:32:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual The bias "claim" is wrt to the news sections, not Op/Eds. When opinion is disguised as news is when there is a problem, not in clearly labeled opinion sections. I watch Fox News quite a bit. Mostly because it amazes me they can call it news with a straight face. They constantly intermingle opinion with news so you really don't know whether you are watching a news or commentary show. If there is bias in other news sources, as I've said before, it is subtle. Fox makes no secret of their blatant bias, despite the fair and balanced claim. And what's almost become as bad is the Wall Street Journal since Murdoch took over that too.

CruelNUnsual -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 5:44:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual The bias "claim" is wrt to the news sections, not Op/Eds. When opinion is disguised as news is when there is a problem, not in clearly labeled opinion sections. I watch Fox News quite a bit. Mostly because it amazes me they can call it news with a straight face. They constantly intermingle opinion with news so you really don't know whether you are watching a news or commentary show. If there is bias in other news sources, as I've said before, it is subtle. Fox makes no secret of their blatant bias, despite the fair and balanced claim. And what's almost become as bad is the Wall Street Journal since Murdoch took over that too. The WSJ issue is only wrt to their Op/Eds, which again, are not the issue. If Fox "makes no secret of their blatant bias" (btw, even Clinton's handlers said that Fox gave her the fairest treatment during the primaries), then that isnt an issue either. It is precisely the "subtle bias" in other news sources that is so insidious because it passes so easily as news. First time youve agreed with me that I can recall. Welcome to the dark side.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 5:46:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Liberal? Says who? Since more that half of the paper is sports and financial news (and a ton of ads),the charge of a bias falls kinda flat. Only to those with their heads in a toxic waste dump. There have been numerous studies by Universities that lean left to start with demonstrating it. 87% of statistics are half wrong.

Owner59 -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 7:07:53 PM)
The liberal bias claim is a rouse to give cover to conservative attacking the 4th estate.The 4th estate being to only real check of tyrants and tyranny. If you undermined the media ,you can get away with murder.If you poison the media stream with fake news ,fake reporters and false information,it get`s even worse.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 6:57:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Let`s de-subsidize Haliburton ,KBR and Blackwater......[:D] Then tobacco farming and off shore tax shelters....[:D] And family farms...and wildlife habitats...and Bio-fuel...and windfarms... And you see nothing ironic in this post? The term "relative value"mean anything to you? Yes it does. In terms of relative value, tobacco farms, Haliburton, etc. are...in the end...net taxpayers. Family farms, wildlife habitats, the ethanol industry and windfarms are...in the end...net taxreceivers. Therefore, less valuable. Unless of course you wish to consider all the fluffy "feel good" stuff.

thishereboi -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 8:01:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual The bias "claim" is wrt to the news sections, not Op/Eds. When opinion is disguised as news is when there is a problem, not in clearly labeled opinion sections. I watch Fox News quite a bit. Mostly because it amazes me they can call it news with a straight face. They constantly intermingle opinion with news so you really don't know whether you are watching a news or commentary show. If there is bias in other news sources, as I've said before, it is subtle. Fox makes no secret of their blatant bias, despite the fair and balanced claim. And what's almost become as bad is the Wall Street Journal since Murdoch took over that too. You claim you think Fox is biased and you can't actually call it news, yet you watch it "quite a bit". So why do you waste your time watching something you don't feel is giving you the real news? I think MSNBC is biased so I don't watch it. It reminds me of the ones who claim to hate Rush, yet can quote things from his show because they spend hours of the day listening to him. Doesn't make any sense to me. Personally I value my time more than that. If I don't like a show or channel, I don't watch it.

thishereboi -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 8:05:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 The liberal bias claim is a rouse to give cover to conservative attacking the 4th estate.The 4th estate being to only real check of tyrants and tyranny. If you undermined the media ,you can get away with murder.If you poison the media stream with fake news ,fake reporters and false information,it get`s even worse. That's right Owner...there is not such thing as liberal bias when it comes to the news. Either a station is conservative and a bunch of biased asshats or else its liberal and always tells the news in a unbiased and fair way. I just wish those nasty neocons would quit picking on you poor little libs who are just trying to make the world a better place through higher taxes and more government control.

janiebelle -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 9:42:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven OMFG. No way. On several levels. 1. I'm plenty unhappy about the funding of the NEA. Arguments over what KIND of art should be funded, etc... This looks worse. 2. The problems are that the Internet is a free alternative to print media, and that advertisers are tightening their belts. The bill addresses neither of those. 3. Print media kills trees. Internet does not. 4. I was up in arms when Bush proposed his faith based initiatives. I want religions to be focused on devotion and meeting social needs. I do NOT want them to be spending their resources writing proposals and worrying about how their actions will play in Washington. The concept of a media that is not independent scares me. The concept of a media that is not in a position to claim that it's independent loses what little legitimacy that media may still have.

janiebelle -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 9:47:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant God, it consistently amazes me how often FOX is brought up...perhaps because it has been successful...in liberal arguments about the "balance" of news reporting. CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, The Washington Post, The Denver Post, Time, Newsweek are all representative of the Democratic/liberal/progressive side. In the conservative corner...FOX. No, newspapers should not be subsizidized by the government nor should any media outlet that covers the news. Though bias cannot be kept out of these outlets...the people writing for newspapers and T.V. have their own beliefs and that tends more and more to color their reporting--- reporting in which many times you have editorials masquerading as news stories...the minute government money becomes the biggest source of revenue, that's the minute that the press is no longer "free". Precisely. Under free market conditions, advertisers are the ones primarily in the position to bully newspapers. Under a very scary NWO it would be the government. Anyone who thinks that is a good idea might consider picking another country. j

janiebelle -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 10:01:29 AM)
A newspaper is about as worthless for stopping tyranny as it is for housetraining a dog. A 230 gr. FMJ has been proven to stop some real sons-o-bitches right in their tracks. Hence the 2A being the "enforcer" for the 1A. j quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 The liberal bias claim is a rouse to give cover to conservative attacking the 4th estate.The 4th estate being to only real check of tyrants and tyranny. If you undermined the media ,you can get away with murder.If you poison the media stream with fake news ,fake reporters and false information,it get`s even worse.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125