Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can someone tell me why liberals are so concerned with what people watch on TV? Why does it bother the liberals so much that people watch Fox? I can care less if you watch all of the mis-information on MSNBC or CNN, it's your choice.
If the libs are so worried about whats on TV, shouldn't they be worried about all the violence and garbage that children could have access to on TV?
Liberals and the WH need to stop worrying so much about Fox and what not and concern themselves with real issues.
Katiana, could you give me some insight on that? I've asked it before and no one from the left has answered. Thanks.
OK, now that I've been to the doctor and had several shots in my face to remove some growths, I'm sufficiently numb to respond, LOL!
I for one don't care what anyone watches on TV. My adult daughter watches some of the most bizarre stuff on TLC, such as "I Didn't Know I was Pregnant" (re-enactments of deliveries of people who were 9 months pregnant and didn't know it); "Say 'Yes' to the Dress" (picking out wedding dresses), etc.
I think what some people object to is many on the right get all their information from FOX, and don't take the time to check out what other news sources are saying about a particular issue. There is a thread running here on POC about Rush's Limbaugh's sudden "discovery" that the American Cancer Society is considering, considering mind you, changing its recommendations on certain cancer testings. People are up in arms, questioning why the MSM hasn't reported this story out (it has), etc. Those of us with health care backgrounds on both the left and right are responding with (gasp!) scientific information, which some people seem not to understand.
I don't get all my information from NPR and PBS, and I take the ranting shows on PBS on Friday nights as entertainment as much as Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck are.
Any news organization that took its responsibilities seriously would take pains to cover presidential criticism fairly. It would regard doing so as itself a test of integrity. At Fox, by contrast, complaints of unfairness prompt only hoots of derision and demands for "evidence" that, when presented, is brushed off and ignored.
***
Rather than in any way maturing, Fox has in recent months become more boisterous and demagogic.
***
What's most distinctive about the American press is not its freedom but its century-old tradition of independence—that it serves the public interest rather than those of parties, persuasions, or pressure groups.....For Murdoch, Ailes, and company, "fair and balanced" is a necessary lie. To admit that their coverage is slanted by design would violate the American understanding of the media's role in democracy and our idea of what constitutes fair play. But it's a demonstrable deceit that no longer deserves equal time.
Only fawning news coverage of Washington politicians is American? Offering skepticism, scrutiny, and fact checking of government promises and claims is the job of any news agency, not stenography.
Tapper's questions, clink link for stupid's answers.
Right, Jake Tapper is smarter than Robert Gibbs
Agree, though, that they should have just kept ignoring Faux and concentrated on getting the important messages out. They've been to middle school, they know how this sort of thing works.
Agree, though, that they should have just kept ignoring Faux and concentrated on getting the important messages out. They've been to middle school, they know how this sort of thing works.
Hope they'll take my advice before it's too late
Right, Jake Tapper is smarter than Robert Gibbs
Unfortunately he is, and tragically he is smarter that a whole bunch of the clowns.
Tapper was pretty Fauxian, faux-naive in this instance. It doesnt matter how many thousands of journalists work for Faux, or what their integrity conflicts might be. The end result is what gets onto the airwaves. But naturally the RW media dont go that far, and dont need to with the audience they have.
PS. I notice you all have been allowed to drop ABC from your round-up of "the liberal media." Is that entirely due to Jake Tapper working there?
Tapper was pretty Fauxian, faux-naive in this instance. It doesnt matter how many thousands of journalists work for Faux, or what their integrity conflicts might be. The end result is what gets onto the airwaves. But naturally the RW media dont go that far, and dont need to with the audience they have.
PS. I notice you all have been allowed to drop ABC from your round-up of "the liberal media." Is that entirely due to Jake Tapper working there?
Who is you all? Not me. I trust media about as much as I do politicians. Agendas, agendas, agendas.
Only fawning news coverage of Washington politicians is American? Offering skepticism, scrutiny, and fact checking of government promises and claims is the job of any news agency, not stenography.
That's what news orgs do - look at the criticism heaped on Obama and the Obama Admin by even Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. But it's not what Faux does, and Shirley you know that 2B troo.
Hey buddy, hell you should start your own news network. You have it down and patented telling people what they should believe. did you get that from watching MSNBC, Dan Blather, Or uncle Wally the guy that sent htis country down the path to left leaning univiersities and Donahued America.
obtw, you just cited the liberal coalition blacks, gays, liberals, immigrants, non christians, and gays. Hell no wonder your miffed. Which one do you belong to, two out of six, six out of six?
Did you even READ what I said. I mentioned that MSNBC does the same with liberals.
I suppose you were too busy typecasting anyone who disagrees with you into a little box that you have an arsenal of pre-set arguments and assumptions of. I have the same gripes with MSNBC that I do with fox, BOTH are blatantly marketed and biased towards their own sides of the political spectrum.
Keep with your ignorant narrow minded thinking. Place all the people you dont agree with into a single box and convince yourself they ALL THINK ALIKE and are all out to get you. See where that gets you. It damn sure hasnt gotten your party any elections, and considering polls are showing NO one wants anything to do with the words 'neoconservative' and 'republican', it doesnt look like it will anytime soon.
As long as the buffoons and extremists are running the show on the right, all the left has to do is ignore them and keep saying they disagree with Republicans/Conservatives, and theyll keep public support. The problem with that is, the Democrats/Liberals are funded by the same people that the Republicans/Conservatives were. Moderate and Independent voices are cast to the side from both parties in favor of which ever side can (in republicans) be the loudest and most divisive, or (in Democrats) can focus most on how bad the last president was and rack up enough funding.
Conservatives4Palin.com: Surprise: People Magazine Gets it Wrong; Updated: MSNBC Repeats False Claim (http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2009/10/surprise-people-magazine-gets-it-wrong.html - broken link)
I could go on...
Great post.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
