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.
What sitting president has ever had somebody from the other party jump in behind him (After broadcasting from the oval office) and given their POV?
Have people lost their friggin minds or what? Get a clue.
All of them. Clearly you have no clue. After every speech the President gives, the opposition party is always allowed to respond.
ABC would have made Joseph Goebbels proud. Normally it requires government to force the media to deliberately lie to the people. But not in this case. ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN choose to deliberately lie to the people voluntarily, without coercion. Anyone who supports that kind of despicable behavior by watching them should be ashamed. I am ashamed to call them American.
I can understand why Obama and the Dems do not want opposing viewpoints heard, but why wouldn't ABC want to sell the air time and pick up viewers from both camps?
Needles to say, I won't watch something so blatantly biased towards something I am opposed to.
I speculate that ABC is deducting the value of the gift time used on their taxes.
In a round about way, they are getting paid by the decreasing of taxes paid.
Who really knows? Did any corporation ever give anything away with no strings attached? Or without making a gain somewhere for themselves? I can't believe they are doing it just because they are patriotic Americans. The reality of corporate life in America today just says ABC has got something going on for themselves somewhere, somehow.
The article DID say that the RNC thought that the DNC should pay, so ABC must definitely be giving the DNC free time.
Here's another thought, ABC is giving, but later getting in special legislation
passed just for them. Maybe the ABC CEO has a son that needs a high-paying fed job as some Czar of something or other.
You all support the Fairness Doctrine then, I guess. That's pretty surprising.
I looked this up because I was not familiar with the struggle.
What I read said that Dems are not in favor of this doctrine, YET
there is pending legislation introduced by dems to bring it back to law.
I don't know if such a thing is really needed IF the journalists who
present themselves as reporting news would abide by they own ethics.
Now, there are commentary-type journalists...but they SAY that they are
making biased comment.
ABC is crossing the line because they are presenting themselves as
non-biased reporters and not commentators...and like the prior poster said....this series could very well be a biased lie.
Did any corporation ever give anything away with no strings attached? Or without making a gain somewhere for themselves?
To answer your questions - Yes. ABC, CBS, and NBC literally lost money broadcasting the news from 1952 through 1979. It was not until CNN was created in 1980 that the three networks began turning news into "Info-tainment" in order to turn a profit. It was also during that period (1952-1979) when the news was the least biased. Walter Cronkite was the most trusted person on TV.
I read an article on wnd. com that stated ABC News will smear broadcast Obama, the democrats, and the new health care agenda/idea.
(What is very shady, though)
The Republican National Committee Chief of Staff wrote a letter to ABC and asked them to air a Republican response. The ABC News President said no.
The RNC then said that maybe the Dem Nat'l Committee should pay for the air time then.
A freedom of press/speech person said that ABC was pushing the limits with this kind of broadcast. Others say that ABC is definitely damaging the freedom of the press with this type of broadcast.
The public can utilize the dial on their TV set as an opposing response or as one in favor.
I know what I am going to do.
Amazing what people do not know:
Akre V Fox News.
The fact that on health care, as on the stimulus, the GOP and surrogates get almost 35% more airtime on ALL networks than those who favor reform (and a whopping 100% more than the majoritarian opinion which wants a public care option.)
"The media have been aiding their efforts. In a new analysis, ThinkProgress has found that the five cable news networks — CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Fox Business and CNBC — have hosted more Republican lawmakers to discuss the plan than Democrats by a 2 to 1 ratio this week:"
All of them. Clearly you have no clue. After every speech the President gives, the opposition party is always allowed to respond.
Sure....
The White House as a political forum belongs to the President of the United States, not the opposing party. I don't recall one speech Bush gave from the Oval Office that was followed by the Democrat's point of view.
I do recall Bush's "Town Meetings" where the entire audience was handpicked GOP faithfuls only asking questions. Where was the other side of the discussion then?
In an exclusive interview that uncommon? Of course not. Any network would jump at the chance to get an exclusive like this. If you recall it was this same network that had an exclusive with Palin. Funny how I don't recall nary a peep from the Neo Cons about ABC being "in the hands" of Palin, or refusing to provide an alternate view afterwards.
"The media have been aiding their efforts. In a new analysis, ThinkProgress has found that the five cable news networks — CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Fox Business and CNBC — have hosted more Republican lawmakers to discuss the plan than Democrats by a 2 to 1 ratio this week:"
Akre V Fox News, in practical terms, folks.
Thanks for posting your proof.
I, though, am concerned about any group that calls themselves
ThinkProgress. Change isn't necessarily progress.
For instance, if you did not own house equity and did not have a mortgage for the other portion, it would not be practical to purchase mortgage insurance and also home owner's insurance. News Flash. You don't own equity! You do not have a mortgage! You have no risk of losing anything. You don't need insurance!
Likewise, if you were single and didn't have any family that would desperately be stunned for income should you die...you really don't need to purchase life insurance.
Insurance protects you from risk and from losing.
Why do 49 million people need health insurance if they have nothing?
If they get sick, go, and rack up bills that they can't pay because the doctors are charging $500 for five minutes a pop, they can just declare bankruptcy and stick it to the greeds who have ruined their own industry.
They don't OWN ANYTHING ANYWAY! They have nothing to lose!
The health care debate is about making sure the industry who has ruined themselves with their own greed can string society along even more than they have already. They want that 49 million people to think that "Oh, yes, we still have a chance to not be slaves!" Ha
The bleeding saga continues and continues and bingo...the 49 million become 100 million then 250 million...then the fall of Rome.
We don't need ABC false hope propaganda.
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.
