What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

rufus said:
Negative coverage of McCain? That's your evidence?

The guy should have gotten negative coverage. "We're all Georgians now" "the fundamentals of our economy are strong"

Suspending his campaign to go back to Washington to deal with the crisis, and then not saying a word during the discussion until Obama directly asked him his thoughts. Choosing Palin as a runningmate?

Please, the guy ran a lousy campaign, and went back on just about every fundamental he'd built on in his career as a 'maverick'. Furthermore, he had little grasp on the issues, and what he did know, he couldn't convey in a speech to save his life. His dear in the headlights reading of the teleprompter, looking like he was watching a tennis match, left, then right, then left.

He was pathetic.

The press was negative toward Hillary too, especially when she spoke of dodging bullets in Sarajevo.
Click to expand...

Absent the hyperventilating spin, your analysis here is significantly correct. However, there's a difference between reporting what actually happened and just making stuff up. Like the NY Time hitpiece about an alleged McCain affair. The story had no sourcing, in fact no allegation that McCain was having an affair, just quotes from unnamed McCain aides who claimed they were concerned McCain's closeness to some woman could lead to questions about the nature of the relationship. They weren't saying there was an affair, they were saying they were concerned that someone (Hillary? Obama?) might try to make it look like there was an affair. And this the Times decided to put on the front page?

This was the same NY Times (along with the rest of the MSM) who turned a blind eye on the squalid daliances and bastard children producted by John Edwards. It took the National Enquirer to get to the bottom of that one. And this piece of cheese came within Ohio's electoral votes of being vice president of the United States.

So on the one hand, the Times couldn't wait to get into print with one story about possible (not even alleged) affair and on the other simply ignored ample evidence of an affair and much, much more. What was the difference? Give it some thought, it'll come to you.
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Terrierbyassociation said:
Well you'd have to determine whether being well educated as most journalists are would put them in the highly educated demographic that leans liberal tempered by the numerous journalists who have conservative ideals and those who work for Fox News.

I bet its closer to 50-50 than you think.
Click to expand...

Actually, over the years there have been several polls of national (as opposed to local) journalists and results are consistent: about 75% of 'em say they vote Democratic.
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Old Pio said:
Absent the hyperventilating spin, your analysis here is significantly correct. However, there's a difference between reporting what actually happened and just making stuff up. Like the NY Time hitpiece about an alleged McCain affair. The story had no sourcing, in fact no allegation that McCain was having an affair, just quotes from unnamed McCain aides who claimed they were concerned McCain's closeness to some woman could lead to questions about the nature of the relationship. They weren't saying there was an affair, they were saying they were concerned that someone (Hillary? Obama?) might try to make it look like there was an affair. And this the Times decided to put on the front page?

This was the same NY Times (along with the rest of the MSM) who turned a blind eye on the squalid daliances and bastard children producted by John Edwards. It took the National Enquirer to get to the bottom of that one. And this piece of cheese came within Ohio's electoral votes of being vice president of the United States.

So on the one hand, the Times couldn't wait to get into print with one story about possible (not even alleged) affair and on the other simply ignored ample evidence of an affair and much, much more. What was the difference? Give it some thought, it'll come to you.
Click to expand...

This is the same Times that employed Judith Miller? The same paper that gave unquestioning front-page coverage of the administration's lies during the build up to the invasion of Iraq?
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Priceless said:
This is the same Times that employed Judith Miller? The same paper that gave unquestioning front-page coverage of the administration's lies during the build up to the invasion of Iraq?
Click to expand...

The portside tilt of the elite media has been amply demonstrated over the years and continues to be on display just about every day. I view it as topography, a reality that may be overcome but cannot be eliminated. I would assume that if the Times had put Jayson Blair on the case they would have gotten to the bottom of the alleged "lies' by the Bush administration. It's amazing, this bumbling, second rate mind was able to pull the wool over the eyes of all of these self-confessed smart people. Amazing.

This is the same paper that still pats itself on the back for the Pultizer won by Walter Duranty, the Stalin mouthpiece who deliberately lied about the terror famine in the Ukraine, who worked very hard to convince America that 7-10 million Ukranians hadn't been intentionally starved to death, when in fact he knew they had been.

In the 80's PBS ("paid for by viewers like you," "if we don't show it, who will") refused to air an award winning documentary about the terror famine called "Harvest of Despair," which went into some detail about Duranty's journalistic treason, citing a series they were planning to run lauding the revolution, and their desire not to offend the commisars in Moscow. The documentary aired only because Buckley showed it on his "Firing Line" program.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Every baseball fan thinks their announcers are balanced, every visiting team listening to the broadcast thinks they are 'homers'.

Listening to conservatives whine about the mainstream media and liberals whine about Fox is just like listening to Eagles and Cowboys fans on talk radio.

How could a liberal accurately comment on whether they think the media has a liberal bias? or vice versa for a conservative re: Fox

Membership in a party indicates a bias to start.

As I said earlier, I've never assumed that the media wasn't influenced by the beliefs of the reporters and editors. Not to say they would overtly lie or avoid the news...but the amount of focus and presentation of the topic can be influenced...it would be close to impossible for that not to happen.
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

pirate said:
Every baseball fan thinks their announcers are balanced, every visiting team listening to the broadcast thinks they are 'homers'.

Listening to conservatives whine about the mainstream media and liberals whine about Fox is just like listening to Eagles and Cowboys fans on talk radio.

How could a liberal accurately comment on whether they think the media has a liberal bias? or vice versa for a conservative re: Fox

Membership in a party indicates a bias to start.

As I said earlier, I've never assumed that the media wasn't influenced by the beliefs of the reporters and editors. Not to say they would overtly lie or avoid the news...but the amount of focus and presentation of the topic can be influenced...it would be close to impossible for that not to happen.
Click to expand...

Absolutely true, in the abstract. However, I've presented some examples by CBS and one particularly egregious one by the NYT that go far beyond any honest effort to report the news and clearly fall into the category of "overtly lying."
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

pirate said:
Every baseball fan thinks their announcers are balanced, every visiting team listening to the broadcast thinks they are 'homers'.
Click to expand...

I challenge anyone to say Hawk Harrelson is balanced (or anything but abysmal, but that's another discussion).
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Old Pio said:
Absolutely true, in the abstract. However, I've presented some examples by CBS and one particularly egregious one by the NYT that go far beyond any honest effort to report the news and clearly fall into the category of "overtly lying."
Click to expand...

Whereas the examples of bias at Faux News are completely made up.
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

blockski said:
I was about to say - the obvious exception would be White Sox fans.
Click to expand...

d***, you beat me to that one. :D

And I think everyone can agree, Joe Buck and Ron Darling sit high atop the list of jack*** announcers.
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Old Pio said:
Absolutely true, in the abstract. However, I've presented some examples by CBS and one particularly egregious one by the NYT that go far beyond any honest effort to report the news and clearly fall into the category of "overtly lying."
Click to expand...

And I suspect there are more than a few where Fox has done something in the same neighborhood...at least in the view of someone who opposes the Fox viewpoint from the start.

It is like religion, even amongst similar christian religions there are variances that some will site as proof that another religion is completely wrong. From the perspective of a catholic priest, those protestants are 'crazy'. Maybe not as crazy as the muslims, but still crazy.

So, I don't think it is a big discovery to say priests are biased towards catholicism...anymore than it is a big discovery to say that the editors of some major papers and stations have a liberal lean (if bias is too strong a word for some).

The fact that newspapers endorse candidates ought to be enough to convince people there is a bias. Whether that is wrong or right, well, what religion is the beholder?

To the point made earlier that well educated people are liberals...that would be a pretty good example of how people see the world via the tint of their glasses - was the last election decided by those who were the most educated?
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

pirate said:
And I suspect there are more than a few where Fox has done something in the same neighborhood...at least in the view of someone who opposes the Fox viewpoint from the start.

It is like religion, even amongst similar christian religions there are variances that some will site as proof that another religion is completely wrong. From the perspective of a catholic priest, those protestants are 'crazy'. Maybe not as crazy as the muslims, but still crazy.

So, I don't think it is a big discovery to say priests are biased towards catholicism...anymore than it is a big discovery to say that the editors of some major papers and stations have a liberal lean (if bias is too strong a word for some).

The fact that newspapers endorse candidates ought to be enough to convince people there is a bias. Whether that is wrong or right, well, what religion is the beholder?

To the point made earlier that well educated people are liberals...that would be a pretty good example of how people see the world via the tint of their glasses - was the last election decided by those who were the most educated?
Click to expand...

Really? Fox has had a correspondent knowingly filing false reports that inure to the benefit of an unfriendly foreign power? Or has relied on documents it knew or should have known were forgeries? And after the fact said it didn't matter if the documents were forgeries? Really? And even though you're sure Fox has commited these crimes, I'm guessing you can't offer a single example.

Sometimes I wonder whether Fox Derangement Syndrome, apart from being highly contagious, is also fatal. Can't you see that what you and I are referring to here are two entirely different things? I'm referring to journalistic felonies, for which there cannot be any excuse or justification. You're referring to misdemeanors, which are part of being human.

"But what about Fox?" "But what about Fox?" "But what about Fox?" is not an appropriate or persuasive response to the incidents I mentioned.
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

blockski said:
No, I can't really boil it down that simply. Which is the whole point - the word, as is, means different things to different people. So, we know that people don't like "socialism," but we also know that a program like social security is incredibly popular. Point being, I don't think you can extrapolate much as to what people would think of socialist policies, particularly since everything in American society has a strong mixture of both capitalist and socialist heritage.

To me, that poll shows more about the mood of the nation and the state of the current rhetoric than anything else. It's a poll about messaging and communication, not about policy - which is what I was trying to point out.
Click to expand...

Wol4ine said:
But when I call someone a socialist, their usual rebuttal is "97% of the people on Medicare like it".:eek:
Click to expand...

Thank you for making my point. The CBO recently released figures that show social security is now paying out more than what they tax in. Soc.sec. is a government run Ponzi scheme. Bernie Madoff was "incredibly popular" too, until his pyramid collapsed.

Saying socialism means different things to different people is like asking what the definition of is is.
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Old Pio said:
Really? Fox has had a correspondent knowingly filing false reports that inure to the benefit of an unfriendly foreign power? Or has relied on documents it knew or should have known were forgeries? And after the fact said it didn't matter if the documents were forgeries? Really? And even though you're sure Fox has commited these crimes, I'm guessing you can't offer a single example.
Click to expand...

If by this you mean that Fox warps and falsifies information for its political agenda?

The answer as rufus pointed out is a definite yes.

Let's take a look for agendas here (either against opposing parties or sympathy/fear/hate):

Top headlines:

Fox News:
SAY IT AIN'T SO, JOE...GOP BLASTS BIDEN'S IRAQ CLAIM
Republicans outraged after vice president, despite being against surge initially, says the success in Iraq could be one of Obama administration's 'great achievements.'

CBS News:
CLINTON HOSPITALIZED IN NEW YORK CITY
(Note there was no discussion about how he was a great president...only facts about his current condition)

Clearly no bias at either "news" outlet here ;)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top