RE: Is the media abandoning Obama?

RE: Is the media abandoning Obama? (Full Version)

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

Message

rulemylife -> RE: Is the media abandoning Obama? (9/22/2009 10:01:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tnai You got to take it all with a grain of salt, but I think the best work on the media basis in a long time has was done my Orson Scott Card of Ender's Game fame, and he is very liberal. These are reprints of a column he does for his local paper. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005312 http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html Yes, I can see "he is very liberal". It's just that he is a self-hating liberal and apparently hates all other liberals as well. And by the way, you do know the Wall Street Journal and Fox News are under the same ownership, so an editorial in the WSJ defending Fox is hardly credible.

rulemylife -> RE: Is the media abandoning Obama? (9/22/2009 10:18:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: The inconsistency is the fact we have been hearing for years about liberal media bias, yet the fact is the so-called liberal media will criticize Obama as readily as they criticized Bush. I said they ARE being consistent. They are criticizing Obama because he doesn't seem to be having any success meeting their expectations. He seems unable to fulfill their liberal agenda, ergo the criticism. quote: Can you say the same of Fox? And by the way, didn't you just recently say you never watch Fox? Interesting how you know they are consistent. No I can't, especially if you are now saying they haven't been. I rely on the integrity of your representation, is that incorrect? I have to rely on your monitoring. Based upon what you have been saying, FOX has been criticizing them because he IS trying. Their agenda is to not let him succeed. Both produce criticism, albeit with differing intent. It's not really that complicated. Yes it is complicated. Somewhere along the line, certain media sources with an agenda began to convince a large portion of the country that the rest of the media was biased by pandering to the biases of those they were convincing. And I truly believe that it is the media, primarily Fox and conservative radio and websites that are creating the deep divide in this country by exploiting people's unfounded fears for their own monetary benefit.

tnai -> RE: Is the media abandoning Obama? (9/22/2009 10:55:35 PM)
'Blatantly' and 'honestly' are two different words. Fox is more open about there bias but if anything I feel they are slightly less bias, they at least have liberals working for them and getting air time something I see very little of on the other networks.

tnai -> RE: Is the media abandoning Obama? (9/22/2009 11:41:10 PM)
Even if true that he hates himself and all other liberals, a point I in no way agree as being correct, how does that affect my point that I feel he does a good job of describing the situation? Even if the companies which reprinted his article from the first print for the reason of showing the company they belong to are solid news companies how does that affect my point as well? Someone disliking other members of a group they are a member of or being printed by those who have a interest in him being correct are not evidence of them being incorrect. And although Rupert Murdoch does own both Fox New and The WSJ he does not to the best of my knowledge own or have any interest in the Rhinoceros Times in Greensboro, North Carolina which is the paper that first published both of these articles as far as I know. The Rhinoceros Times is owned by John and William Hammer. As I understand it the Wall Street Journal reprinted his article because it is a third party supporting that there company is correct that other news outlets have a liberal bias. And even if I have missed a fact how does who paid who to write what show the article is incorrect? My point is, and has been that the basic question behind this thread is a sad reflection on the media. My evidence is that almost all of the media is very biased, mostly for the President and the liberals, a small section to stop them. I've presented someone I consider a better writer then myself who with a very different world view and set of evidence came to same idea - that American media on the whole can't be trusted. You've done a fine job of showing that Fox news is flawed, something I freely admit too. Beyond that what exactly are are you getting at as it relates to the topic this thread is on?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Is the media abandoning Obama? (9/23/2009 4:32:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: The inconsistency is the fact we have been hearing for years about liberal media bias, yet the fact is the so-called liberal media will criticize Obama as readily as they criticized Bush. I said they ARE being consistent. They are criticizing Obama because he doesn't seem to be having any success meeting their expectations. He seems unable to fulfill their liberal agenda, ergo the criticism. quote: Can you say the same of Fox? And by the way, didn't you just recently say you never watch Fox? Interesting how you know they are consistent. No I can't, especially if you are now saying they haven't been. I rely on the integrity of your representation, is that incorrect? I have to rely on your monitoring. Based upon what you have been saying, FOX has been criticizing them because he IS trying. Their agenda is to not let him succeed. Both produce criticism, albeit with differing intent. It's not really that complicated. Spot on, Merc. Firm

Sanity -> RE: Is the media abandoning Obama? (9/23/2009 10:55:25 AM)
Here you go Firm, this is right on topic: quote: In a somewhat schizophrenic report on Tuesday’s CBS Evening News, White House correspondent Chip Reid proclaimed President Obama is: "still the darling of the international community. Warmly welcomed by a world that grew weary of President Bush’s brash go-it-alone style." But also admitted: "But with scant progress on a long his of issues, the question now is what does he have to show for it?" Anchor Katie Couric opened the segment by asking Reid: "Can the President be anything other than the center of attention? Can he do more with that?" Reid replied: "He sure would like to be, Katie. You know, at every international summit he has attended he has been the most popular person in the room. But now many people are asking what good is popularity if it doesn’t lead to concrete results?" After denouncing President Bush’s "brash style," Reid praised Obama for his "sharp departure" which " has recommitted the United States to working with the U.N. and engaging the world." http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/09/23/cbs-obama-international-darling-hasn-t-accomplished-anything Fascinating stuff.

Sanity -> RE: Is the media abandoning Obama? (9/23/2009 11:00:07 AM)
And here's another one: quote: ABC Notices Obama Administration's Effort to Suppress Criticism of ObamaCare Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's decision to go to the Senate floor on Tuesday to call out the Obama administration for using the full power of a federal regulatory agency to suppress free speech -- specifically, to silence Humana's predictions about the impact of proposed ObamaCare cuts to the Medicare Advantage program -- led ABC, but not CBS or NBC, to air a story on the “gag order.” ABC's story began with a McConnell soundbite (“'Shut up,' the government says, 'don't communicate with your customers. Be quiet and get in line,'”), before reporter Jonathan Karl explained McConnell was referring to the “Department of Health and Human Services, telling insurance companies who serve Medicare recipients, to stop 'misleading' and 'confusing' mailings, saying, quote: 'We are instructing you to immediately discontinue all such mailings, and remove any related materials from your Web sites.'” Karl continued: “The extraordinary order comes in response to a mailing the Humana insurance company sent to customers in the Medicare Advantage program. The Humana mailing warned that because of Medicare cuts in the health care reform bills, quote, 'millions of seniors and disabled individuals could lose many important benefits and services.'” http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2009/09/23/abc-notices-obama-administrations-effort-suppress-criticism-obamacare

kittinSol -> RE: Is the media abandoning Obama? (9/23/2009 11:03:50 AM)
I see... you post two links from Newsbusters, which is an extension of the Media Research Center ("dedicated to exposing liberal media bias" an arguable premise at best)... but of course, your sources aren't slanted and biased at all [8\|] .

Arrogance -> RE: Is the media abandoning Obama? (9/23/2009 11:09:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol I see... you post two links from Newsbusters, which is an extension of the Media Research Center ("dedicated to exposing liberal media bias" an arguable premise at best)... but of course, your sources aren't slanted and biased at all [8\|] . Nope nope! It's all just really really "Fascinating stuff!" [8\|]

Sanity -> RE: Is the media abandoning Obama? (9/23/2009 11:17:28 AM)
Every source is biased kitten, bias is unavoidable when discussing any given topic. What's cool about Newsbusters is that there are transcripts available of whatever is being discussed there, and there is often video. The other day someone posted a clip of CNN's mark Sanchez railing against Fox News. I imagine there was some bias there, as well. [;)] I didn't complain though, because again, its very difficult to discuss any story without having input from some source for basic information, and it can't always be something from the Huffington Post. You have to mix it up a little. Variety is the spice of life. Edited to add the little winky thingy

FirmhandKY -> RE: Is the media abandoning Obama? (9/23/2009 11:45:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arrogance quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol I see... you post two links from Newsbusters, which is an extension of the Media Research Center ("dedicated to exposing liberal media bias" an arguable premise at best)... but of course, your sources aren't slanted and biased at all [8\|] . Nope nope! It's all just really really "Fascinating stuff!" [8\|] Sanity is correct. Sources are especially important when it comes to how something is protrayed, and how the facts are presented (or in the question of whether any such "facts" exist). However, when the facts are available from other sources, or when they are presented with sufficient information so that a reader can form their own opinion, then that is exactly what such a reader should do. However, some people, when they do not like the conclusions from the source, immediately attempt to throw out the facts, not just the interpretation of the facts. For example, neither you nor kittn have made any attempt to determine if Kate Couric and Chip Reid actually said what was reported, and whether or not ABC News actually reported what was in the "biased" source. A person does this for one of four reasons: 1. They don't know any better, 2. They are intentionally attempting to dishonestly influence the discussion, and can't do it based on the facts, 3. They are truly convinced that the actual facts aren't important. 4. They get so excited (or frustrated, or otherwise emotional involved) with the discussion and the conclusions that rationality is no longer their primary means of interpretation or communication. It could even be a combination, but I'll leave it up to others to form their own conclusions about why any one person might attempt to use fallacious arguments in any particular case. It just needs to be pointed out from time to time, as it is something we are all guilty of doing, even with the best intentions. Firm

kittinSol -> RE: Is the media abandoning Obama? (9/23/2009 11:59:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Every source is biased kitten, bias is unavoidable when discussing any given topic. I'm sure that even you see the irony of posting something from the Media Research Center trying to demonstrate there is a libbias in the media, on a thread that argues the media isn't liberal nor Obama biased after all. Ever read Catch 22 (Joseph Heller)? It's a classic of American literature. It exposes precisely the kind of crazy thinking that's being demonstrated by the OP, as well as yourself, on this thread. (You're lucky you're so cute [8D] .)

Sanity -> RE: Is the media abandoning Obama? (9/23/2009 12:01:56 PM)
Who is better equipped to uncover liberal media bias than Newsbusters. Who else ya gonna call.

kittinSol -> RE: Is the media abandoning Obama? (9/23/2009 12:06:35 PM)
I don't know: Bullshitbusters?

TheHeretic -> RE: Is the media abandoning Obama? (9/23/2009 5:59:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY rationality is no longer their primary means of interpretation or communication. That is incredibly optimistic and generous of you, Firm. [:D]

FirmhandKY -> RE: Is the media abandoning Obama? (9/23/2009 6:20:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY rationality is no longer their primary means of interpretation or communication. That is incredibly optimistic and generous of you, Firm. [:D] I'm trying really hard to stay off my favorite mod's radar. [8D] Firm

ETIEOKWE -> RE: Is the media abandoning Obama? (9/24/2009 9:20:35 AM)
I DON'T THINK SO BUT IT IS JUST THAT HIS GOVERNMENT IS EXPERIENCING WHAT OTHERS HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCING.SO HIS OWN CASE WILL NOT BE DIFFERENT.THANKS AND AMERICANS SHOULD CONTINUE TO PRAY FOR OBAMA'S ADMINISTRATION TO SUCCEED AND NOT TO FAIL. FROM JOHN,NIGERIA.

Esinn -> RE: Is the media abandoning Obama? (9/25/2009 10:26:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse The day after Obama was elected, Chris Mathews said on his show that it was his job to see that the Obama administration was a success. No bias there. Therefore the media is bias, Obama is a socialist and hates old people.

servantforuse -> RE: Is the media abandoning Obama? (9/26/2009 6:35:10 AM)
I believe that all of the above are true indeed except hating old people. He will offer an early way out for them to save money elsewhere.

pahunkboy -> RE: Is the media abandoning Obama? (9/26/2009 11:55:40 AM)
FR: the British Empire- (crown) is abandoning him. In fact a faction of the CIA tried to assassinate him a few weeks ago. The crown is dumping him because he is a non-performing assest. Even tho he is a puppet- he has not crammed down all the laws they want before the total collapse.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875