PDA

View Full Version : Governor Rendell said...



sack316
08-27-2008, 12:12 AM
on H&C tonight that during the primaries that (and it pained him to say it) that Fox News was the most fair and balanced. I think they'll take that as high praise coming from a governor at the DNC.

Sack

eg8r
08-27-2008, 07:16 AM
Fox might take it as praise, but the DNC will treat him like they did Zell Miller. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Deeman3
08-27-2008, 07:28 AM
I have to say, the lines have been drawn. Fox, whom I prefer, is, in fact, showing about as much bias to the right as MSNBC and CNN is to the left. That's o.k. as their audience shows that's what they want but it is painfully obvious that all three are in the tank for "their" candidate. It just damages journalism in my opinion. Fox knows if it does not, only one side of the coin will be covered now. It's just sad this is what the fine field of journalism has come to in this country.

MSNBC, CNN and FOX should not pretend to be news shows anymore. All are corrupt beyond words. Obama may have an edge in the number of networks for his campaign but FOX has the numbers in viewers. I hope it balances out a bit in the future.

eg8r
08-27-2008, 07:31 AM
Fox learned real quick during the high years of the Clinton News Network that while you might be looking for good solid journalism, the shareholders were looking for ratings. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif In the end it is a business. Like any successful business Fox is providing the "news" the viewers want to see.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-27-2008, 08:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Like any successful business Fox is providing the "news" the viewers want to see.

eg8r </div></div>

If you exchange the word "news" for the words "Republican propaganda" your sentence would be correct. I assume that is why you put the word, "news" in quotes?

As Deeman stated, we all lose when propaganda takes the place of fair and balanced news and legitimate reporting. I believe Reagan played a role in this unfortunate circumstance, where partisan biased propaganda, favoring either party, is allowed to pass for factual reporting, without a fairness doctrine in place to prevent it.

As Helen Thomas stated in her recent HBO special about her life, and decades of White House reporting, there are no liberal reporters, hence, we end up fighting a no win war in a country which was no national security threat to our country.

The Democratic convention, for example, has been nearly impossible to view on any cable channel due to pundits who think the sound of their own voices are the most beautiful sound in the world.

There is only one way to see events unfolding without bias, interruptions, and pundit spin, and that is by viewing it on C-Span. Viewing any political, or current event, on C-Span, versus any cable news channel, regardless of its leaning, is like night and day. There is then, only the event, and your own critical analysis of the event.

Gayle in Md.

cheesemouse
08-27-2008, 12:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Like any successful business Fox is providing the "news" the viewers want to see.

eg8r </div></div>

If you exchange the word "news" for the words "Republican propaganda" your sentence would be correct. I assume that is why you put the word, "news" in quotes?

As Deeman stated, we all lose when propaganda takes the place of fair and balanced news and legitimate reporting. I believe Reagan played a role in this unfortunate circumstance, where partisan biased propaganda, favoring either party, is allowed to pass for factual reporting, without a fairness doctrine in place to prevent it.

As Helen Thomas stated in her recent HBO special about her life, and decades of White House reporting, there are no liberal reporters, hence, we end up fighting a no win war in a country which was no national security threat to our country.

The Democratic convention, for example, has been nearly impossible to view on any cable channel due to pundits who think the sound of their own voices are the most beautiful sound in the world.

There is only one way to see events unfolding without bias, interruptions, and pundit spin, and that is by viewing it on C-Span. Viewing any political, or current event, on C-Span, versus any cable news channel, regardless of its leaning, is like night and day. There is then, only the event, and your own critical analysis of the event.

Gayle in Md.








</div></div>I have watched the last two convention days on C-span w/o once having to listen to some bone head pundit try and tell me what I am hearing and seeing. It is an absolute pleasure to have these yoyo's tuned out for once. I will watch the rest of this convention and the Republican one next week w/o punditry. I'm starting to believe MSM is a total waste land and a disservice to the society in general.

eg8r
08-27-2008, 12:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you exchange the word "news" for the words "Republican propaganda" your sentence would be correct.</div></div>Call it whatever makes you happy, in the end it is still exactly what Americans want to see. It is astounding to believe that the nutty 28% are the only ones viewing Fox, which leads us to believe the overwhelming majority of cable-news-viewing-Americans do not believe your nutty numbers.

eg8r

wolfdancer
08-27-2008, 01:29 PM
I'm glad that you finally admit to the "nutty 28%" label.
My own take on Fox "news" is that while they have the numbers, folks are not necessarily tuning in to get any truth and direction. I watch them with the same mind frame I reserved for the Gong show...."how bad are they going to be today???"
I just hope that folks can watch and discern what is the real truth, and not be led astray by the biased views of O'Really.
He is paid, after all to be controversial..and that means you have to bend, twist, and stretch the truth,
In other words "it's show business"
Here's a great idea to increase the ratings....a theme song for Bill:
Fox News (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pkmiWLN2jE&feature=related)
might have to change the words to fit Bill's fans
"there's no people like slow people...."

eg8r
08-27-2008, 03:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm glad that you finally admit to the "nutty 28%" label.</div></div>I was goofing on it since you guys seem to think Fox is biased to the right and you tell us the whole nation is ready for the Reps to get booted. If you look at the ratings either you are wrong about wanting to boot the Reps or your nutty 28 number is wrong.

eg8r

pooltchr
08-27-2008, 07:11 PM
Do you think attractive females with nice legs and short skirts have anything to do with viewership?

Steve

sack316
08-27-2008, 08:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you think attractive females with nice legs and short skirts have anything to do with viewership?

Steve </div></div>

I would tend to think so. But then again, why would anyone was Bill O. in that case? Surely Red Eye would be the #1 program then. Also if that so, then "Naked News" would have taken over all by now.

On that note, if Fox could lure away Robin Meade... that would be nice as well. Or if not fox, maybe the other program I mentioned (and I don't mean Red Eye) /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack

Deeman3
08-28-2008, 07:37 AM
I had been saying that I thought Katie Couric was not as bad as many have said and have, in fact, been watching CBS national news each day, as I figured she was as good as the other two clowns on network. Besides, I thought they treated her unfairly just because she was a woman (don't tell Gayle I said that!)

However, last night, she said she cried when a woman expressed her tearful support for Hillary. Gee, and I thougth she was the adult in the room! NOw, understand, she is a news anchor, not a political commentator and during the news broadcast, she should be a reporter not an emotional cheerleader, like Oberman the Doberman or Hannity the insanity. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif I hope this is not a trend for her. I had hopes she would be different.

eg8r
08-28-2008, 08:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Besides, I thought they treated her unfairly just because she was a woman (don't tell Gayle I said that!)
</div></div>Do you mean they gave her too much money on her contract?

eg8r

Deeman3
08-28-2008, 09:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Besides, I thought they treated her unfairly just because she was a woman (don't tell Gayle I said that!)
</div></div>Do you mean they gave her too much money on her contract?

eg8r </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">I guess they did give her too much money but that's another issue. The comments of Chronkite and others were aimed at making her fail and belittling her when, in reality, the face of journalism has been inquestion long before she came on the scene. She was not the first journalist with little real news experience to be a poster boy, as most are now. She was just the first woman. Note: other prominent women either had news backgrounds or were not network anchors). Of course, being a network anchor is not what it used to be but is still much better paid. However, the same can be said for senators and congressmen. </span>

Wally_in_Cincy
08-28-2008, 02:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

My own take on Fox "news" is that while they have the numbers, folks are not necessarily tuning in to get any truth and direction. I watch them with the same mind frame I reserved for the Gong show...."how bad are they going to be today???"
</div></div>

I used to watch Dan Rather for the same reason. The night Clinton was elected I thought he ws going to jump out of his chair. Then 2 years later when it was obvious Gingrich's crew was taking over Congress I thought he was going to break down and bawl.

Wally_in_Cincy
08-28-2008, 03:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

partisan biased propaganda, favoring either party, is allowed to pass for factual reporting, without a fairness doctrine in place to prevent it.

</div></div>

Fairness doctrine = censorship

I don't think it would pass Constitutional muster if it were implemented again.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


As Helen Thomas stated in her recent HBO special about her life, and decades of White House reporting, there are no liberal reporters,
</div></div>

Why would you repeat such a ridiculous statement?

Deeman3
08-28-2008, 03:21 PM
Of course, by Helen Thomas's opinion, there would be no liberal reporters. She is one of the most liberal and not a person who can fairly judge this just as Hannity can't be trusted on his judgement of the right.

The left will always pull out the fairness doctrine as an example of "fairness" when it is clearly an effort to override the wishes of the news consuming public, plain and simple.

This is the area where we need the protection of our Supreme Court much more than in the area of the Abortion well after birth debate, in my opinion. This, is to me, more threatening than anything else, even the risk to the ecconomy with Obama.

Wow, I was almost falling for the Obama might not be so bad theory but this may yanks me back to the right a few degrees. I had imagined that the ecconomy was the deal, and despite the woes of the far left, our eccomnony while in a weak cycle, are no where near where it could be with a full tilt effort at mass spending. The very thought of the Hitler like so called "fairness" doctrine will give the weaker cases of poorly run news organizations equal access without an earned audience. Can you imagine being forced to listen to Al Franken "awarded" equal time?

You can always tune out FOX but legislating them out is so un-American even Clinton, Bill not Hillary, would be ashamed.

Gee, a little more of this stuff just might push me into voting for that traitor McCain.

wolfdancer
08-28-2008, 05:09 PM
"...Fox is providing the "news" the viewers want to see."

What he meant to say was "managed news"...just couldn't bring himself to write that. His conscience did make him use the quotation marks, but not being well schooled in good grammar, he omitted the ellipsis ...
Fortunately, I'm able to cross party lines to help out...

mike60
09-01-2008, 11:08 AM
The difference between opinion and news is the question. If you agree it's news if not it's opinion.

miguel james kopp doing forever as some guy's bitch

Gayle in MD
09-01-2008, 07:23 PM
Why would you ask such a ridicuulous question?

Gayle in MD
09-01-2008, 07:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">She is one of the most liberal and not a person who can fairly judge this just as Hannity can't be trusted on his judgement of the right.
</div></div>

I hope you're not trying to compare Helen Thomas, to Sean Hannity. There isn't one single person on Faux News good enough to shine Helen Thomas's shoes. She is above reproach, and she was the ONLY reporter who stood up to this corrupt, lying pack of scoundrels when they lied this country into this illeal war. And No, there are no liberal reporters in the White House Press Corps, and in fact, they have died out completely. Republicans own the Washgington Press Corps, and the National cable press, didn't you know?

It's the Bush doctrine..."Write what we tell you, or you'll get no access at all."

Qtec
09-01-2008, 08:18 PM
Obviously he has never watched Fox!

How is it possible that there are still many in the USA who believe Obama is a Muslim?
The Madrassa story was flaged from the start but it was Fox that dragged a totally FALSE story into the mainstream media.

Republicans.
"they love America but hate half the people living in it!"

LOL

Q

Sid_Vicious
09-01-2008, 08:44 PM
"Of course, by Helen Thomas's opinion, there would be no liberal reporters. She is one of the most liberal and not a person who can fairly judge"

I emphatically disagree...sid

Sid_Vicious
09-01-2008, 08:52 PM
"It's the Bush doctrine..."Write what we tell you, or you'll get no access at all."

Sad but true.

NOW, let us all see if they(rad rights) can take thier own medicine Gayle, during this last part of the campaign with this puny VP. If Hillary was hounded like she was for her gender, for her lack of strength and experience, for the run, then the VP select on the rep side should have absolutely no constraits for scrutiny as far all of her past and present persona. "F the first lady" asking for personal and family issues be left aside, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander"!!!sid

Gayle in MD
09-02-2008, 07:26 AM
The Republicans were all about the 'HIllary is riding on her husband's coat tails," BS accusation, when she in fact had served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for seven years.

Now, here comes Palin, obviously riding on Hillary's successful campaign, as the first women to get more votes than any male candidate that was running for the presidency.

When Palin spoke about Hillary's 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling, and said, "We're not finished yet!" it was an admission that she intends to capitalize on Hillary's success.

McCain didn't even bother vetting this woman. This is pure proof of his spastic nature, and his inability to take his own out of control ambition out of the decision making picture. A pure act of desperation!

Palin is the biggest joke since Bush tried to put Harriet on the Supreme Court. But you can bet that this hard headed spastic nut, McCain, won't have enough sense to remove Palin, and start over.

He just handed the election to Obama, and he's too stupid to realize it! No person in their right mind would prefer Palin behind that desk, to Joe Biden, in case of a assination, or sudden death of the President. The reaction of the right wign nuts, is undeniable proof that they cannot make decisions according to realistic facts. They have no business calling others sheep, after this fiasco! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Deeman3
09-02-2008, 07:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He just handed the election to Obama, and he's too stupid to realize it! </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">Then we won't have to bother with all that silly voting and stuff. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </span>

Gayle in MD
09-02-2008, 09:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin employed a lobbying firm
to secure almost $27 million in federal funds for a town of 6,700 residents while she was its mayor,
a practice that Sen. John McCain has railed
against in his campaign for president.
</div></div>

The woman is a hypocrite just like McCain.

cheesemouse
09-02-2008, 10:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He just handed the election to Obama, and he's too stupid to realize it! </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">Then we won't have to bother with all that silly voting and stuff. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </span> </div></div>Deeman 3 you have just put your finger on the Republican's major problem with this election, "can we get them to vote?" Conservatives know McCain is not a conservative. Hell, real conservatives think he is a screaming left wing liberal and under no circumstances can they stomach voting for him. Fundamentalist, evangelicals, and other regular church goer's are not even sure if he is religious at all so they could sit this one out also. Now we have McCain making these questionable judgment calls every week which solidifies the above factions choice to sit this one out. What about those most important of all voting factions, the swing voters? Given John's track record running his campaign; going broke early on, his top advisor's coming and going, his mind boggling slips of the tongue( "is that my ass over there? No, John that is a hole in the ground.")....but I digress...finally his seemingly cavalier pandering choice for second on the ticket leave the swing voters picking their jaws up off the floor, pushing their bugged out eyes back into the sockets, and silently saying "that settles it, I don't want this guy within 20 miles of the White House."

...but hey, I could be wrong...

Deeman3
09-02-2008, 10:27 AM
[quote=cheesemouse "that settles it, I don't want this guy within 20 miles of the White House."

...but hey, I could be wrong... [/quote]

<span style="color: #FF0000">I don't think you are wrong. I just think that many of us Americans know in our heart that there is not good choice this year, that the Republicans blew it over the last few years and a horrible price will be paid by all for this in either candidate being elected. Everyone thinks they want a liberal congress and president at the same time. They, of course, have no clue as to what this will mean and, as I said, the Republicans spending has now open the gates to untold waste, programs that only administrate money for bridges to nowhere and coddling of special interests. Not that it sis not happen with the present administration, they were just not, as bad as they were, real experts at this.

As I said, this will be a very depressing time for adults over the next few years. </span>

DickLeonard
09-02-2008, 10:43 AM
Deeman I am lining up for my Prozac now. A good bet will be the Drug Co. mfg for those stock pickers among us. I loved David Lettermans famous speechs by Presidents this next 2 months could prove VEEERRRRYYYY IIINNNTTTEEERRREEESSSTTTIIINNNGGGG ####

Gayle in MD
09-02-2008, 10:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Not that it sis not happen with the present administration, they were just not, as bad as they were, real experts at this.

</div></div>

The voting records on earmarks, prove otherwise, Deeman. And truly, the problem with the right is that they have no clue as to all the damage Bush and the Republicans have caused to this nation. That is really the sadest part of all of this.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"There does not exist an engine so corruptive of the government and so demoralizing of the nation as a public debt. It will bring on us more ruin at home than all the enemies from abroad against whom this army and navy are to protect us." --Thomas Jefferson, 1821
</div></div>

cheesemouse
09-02-2008, 10:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[quote=cheesemouse "that settles it, I don't want this guy within 20 miles of the White House."

...but hey, I could be wrong... </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">I don't think you are wrong. I just think that many of us Americans know in our heart that there is not good choice this year, that the Republicans blew it over the last few years and a horrible price will be paid by all for this in either candidate being elected. Everyone thinks they want a liberal congress and president at the same time. They, of course, have no clue as to what this will mean and, as I said, the Republicans spending has now open the gates to untold waste, programs that only administrate money for bridges to nowhere and coddling of special interests. Not that it sis not happen with the present administration, they were just not, as bad as they were, real experts at this.

As I said, this will be a very depressing time for adults over the next few years. </span> [/quote]

I have always believed that all presidents grow into the office so the character of the man/woman is more important than experience, no one can prepare themselves for this most difficult job in the world. I lost that faith in the office during GW's years but I am willing to gather it back one more time and vote for the one that I feel will grow into the office. I don't believe John has room for growth, only decline(the age thing). I believe Obama has that potential.

wolfdancer
09-02-2008, 10:49 AM
"As I said, this will be a very depressing time for adults over the next few years."
We got experience now, as It's also been depressing for us adults, trying to get over the last few years

Gayle in MD
09-02-2008, 11:04 AM
I totally agree.

Deeman3
09-02-2008, 12:33 PM
Dick,

Save me some Prozac as well. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif I am hoping that we all forget there is an election and everyone not show up to vote.