The United States of America is a "conservative principal", liberalism is an aberration.
How on earth anyone thinks some career politician can run a worldwide economy is simply mind boggling. The founding fathers did not believe in the government liberals believe in today. They would probably suggest it's time for another Boston Tea Party. The power was always intended to be with the people, not some fucking career dildo that can raise money from the special interests that buy him.
Liberal policies are the gorilla in the room, waste and excess and taxation that drain everything from the people and the markets. They often hurt the people they're intended to help, with welfare being a case in point. Since the inception of welfare, poverty and single parenthood have escalated in the inner cities. States with the most generous welfare programs, like my home state, have the most poverty. The correlation is undeniable.
Your conclusions about policy are categorically mistaken. And although the people are right of center, our elected officials are left of center. Nobody on earth can say Bush was a fiscal conservative, except for tax cuts. What does Obama want to do about taxes again?
Of course, Obama makes Bush look like a fiscal conservative, but appearances are deceptive.
Again, if you care to discuss any particular policy, I'm extending another invitation. Your choice no less.
The USA was founded on the most liberal thought at that time. As times have grown more complex we have tried to make policys that would mirror the thoughts of the founding fathers. Capitolism is our economic engine of choice because it gives the most freedom and freedom creates the best atmosphere for growth.
There are some that think that freedom gives the more successful the right to prey without mercy on the less fortunate and those less fourtuneate soles are like the "untouchables" of India.
The reason for the expanded government is to try and make all of our citizens a comfortable and healthy place to work and live.
Sweatshops were never as efficient as enthusitic workers.
There are some that think that freedom gives the more successful the right to prey without mercy on the less fortunate and those less fourtuneate soles are like the "untouchables" of India.
The reason for the expanded government is to try and make all of our citizens a comfortable and healthy place to work and live.
Sweatshops were never as efficient as enthusitic workers.
You're funny!
Norvell is London bureau chief for Fox News, and on May 20 he let the mask slip in, of all places, the Wall Street Journal. So far, the damage has been contained, because Norvell's comments—in an op-ed he wrote decrying left-wing bias at the BBC—appeared only in the Journal's European edition. But Chatterbox's agents are everywhere.
Here is what Norvell fessed up to in the May 20 Wall Street Journal Europe:
Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren't subsidizing Bill's bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don't enjoy that peace of mind.
Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb's institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it.
. . . . . . . . . . .
An email sent to Jim Romenesko's for posting on the message board of the journalism training center, The Poynter Institute, by former Fox News producer Charlie Reina, described the Fox newsroom as being permeated by bias:
<dl><dd>The roots of Fox News Channel's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel's daytime programming, The Memo is the bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it. </dd></dl> <dl><dd>The Memo was born with the Bush administration, early in 2001, and, intentionally or not, has ensured that the administration's point of view consistently comes across on FNC. This year, of course, the war in Iraq became a constant subject of The Memo. But along with the obvious - information on who is where and what they'll be covering - there have been subtle hints as to the tone of the anchors' copy. </dd></dl> <dl><dd>For instance, from the March 20th memo: "There is something utterly incomprehensible about Kofi Annan's remarks in which he allows that his thoughts are 'with the Iraqi people'. One could ask where those thoughts were during the 23 years Saddam Hussein was brutalizing those same Iraqis. Food for thought." Can there be any doubt that the memo was offering not only "food for thought", but a direction for the FNC writers and anchors to go? Especially after describing the U.N. Secretary General's remarks as "utterly incomprehensible"? </dd></dl> <dl><dd>The sad truth is, such subtlety is often all it takes to send Fox's newsroom personnel into action - or inaction, as the case may be. One day this past spring, just after the U.S. invaded Iraq, The Memo warned us that anti-war protesters would be 'whining' about U.S. bombs killing Iraqi civilians, and suggested they could tell that to the families of American soldiers dying there. Editing copy that morning, I was not surprised when an eager young producer killed a correspondent's report on the day's fighting - simply because it included a brief shot of children in an Iraqi hospital. </dd></dl> <dl><dd>These are not isolated incidents at Fox News Channel, where virtually no one of authority in the newsroom makes a move unmeasured against management's politics, actual or perceived. At the Fair and Balanced network, everyone knows management's point of view, and, in case they're not sure how to get it on air, The Memo is there to remind them. [5] </dd></dl> In a subsequent interview with Tim Greive at Salon, Reina expanded on his brief initial note to Romenesko and explained how the bias of Fox management permeated the newsroom.
Asked for further examples, Reina described a story he worked on. "It was, I would say, about three years ago. I was assigned to do a special on the environment, some issue involving pollution. When my boss and I talked as to what this thing was all about, what they were looking for, he said to me: 'You understand, you know, it's not going to come out the pro-environmental side.' And I said, 'It will come out however it comes out.' And he said, 'You can obviously give both sides, but just make sure that the pro-environmentalists don't get the last word,' he said." Reina declined to do the story.
Pressed for further examples, he told Grieve of one affecting coverage of the Middle East. "I'll give you another example from that memo. When the Palestinian suicide bombings started last year, shortly after they started, one of the memos came down and suggested, 'Wouldn't it be better if we used 'homicide bombing' because the word 'suicide' puts the focus on and memorializes the perpetrator rather than the victims?' OK, never mind the fact that any bombing that kills is a homicide bombing. What would you call a suicide bombing where the perpetrator isn't killed? An intended suicidal homicide bombing? It got ridiculous. It may be ridiculous, but if you watch Fox now, you'll frequently hear suicide bombings described as 'homicide bombings,' right? ," he said.
"I'll tell you, it's interesting. On that same day [that Fox management distributed a memo suggesting suicide bombings be called 'homicide bombings'], the White House had made the same suggestion -- well, the Bush administration, whether it was the White House or the Pentagon or whatever. That's the background to it. By the next day, enough people [at Fox] were saying, 'What about this?' So the next day's memo kind of reluctantly said, 'Well, you could use either one.' But by then, everyone -- and again, we're talking about young people who don't have any perspective on this; all they know is that you do what they're told -- they know what management's feeling about this is. So ... it's 'homicide bombings.' And that's the beginnings of a new P.C," he said.[6]
Matt Gross, who left Fox News in March 2001 after working as a web journalist and editor, wrote to Romenesko about Reina's note:
<dl><dd>Let me just say that the right-wing bias was there in the newsroom, up-front and obvious, from the day a certain executive editor was sent down from the channel to bring us in line with their coverage. His first directive to us: Seek out stories that cater to angry, middle-aged white men who listen to talk radio and yell at their televisions. (Oh, how I'd love to stick quotation marks around what is nearly a direct quote.) </dd></dl> <dl><dd>To me, FNC reporters' laziness was the worst part of the bias. It wasn't that they were toeing some political line (though of course they were; see the embarrassing series on property rights from 2000), it was that the facts of a story just didn't matter at all. The idea was to get those viewers out of their seats, screaming at the TV, the politicians, the liberals -- whoever -- simply by running a provocative story," he wrote in October 2003. [7]. </dd></dl>
. . . . . . . . . . .Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb's institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it.
. . . . . . . . . . .
An email sent to Jim Romenesko's for posting on the message board of the journalism training center, The Poynter Institute, by former Fox News producer Charlie Reina, described the Fox newsroom as being permeated by bias:
<dl><dd>The roots of Fox News Channel's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel's daytime programming, The Memo is the bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it. </dd></dl> <dl><dd>The Memo was born with the Bush administration, early in 2001, and, intentionally or not, has ensured that the administration's point of view consistently comes across on FNC. This year, of course, the war in Iraq became a constant subject of The Memo. But along with the obvious - information on who is where and what they'll be covering - there have been subtle hints as to the tone of the anchors' copy. </dd></dl> <dl><dd>For instance, from the March 20th memo: "There is something utterly incomprehensible about Kofi Annan's remarks in which he allows that his thoughts are 'with the Iraqi people'. One could ask where those thoughts were during the 23 years Saddam Hussein was brutalizing those same Iraqis. Food for thought." Can there be any doubt that the memo was offering not only "food for thought", but a direction for the FNC writers and anchors to go? Especially after describing the U.N. Secretary General's remarks as "utterly incomprehensible"? </dd></dl> <dl><dd>The sad truth is, such subtlety is often all it takes to send Fox's newsroom personnel into action - or inaction, as the case may be. One day this past spring, just after the U.S. invaded Iraq, The Memo warned us that anti-war protesters would be 'whining' about U.S. bombs killing Iraqi civilians, and suggested they could tell that to the families of American soldiers dying there. Editing copy that morning, I was not surprised when an eager young producer killed a correspondent's report on the day's fighting - simply because it included a brief shot of children in an Iraqi hospital. </dd></dl> <dl><dd>These are not isolated incidents at Fox News Channel, where virtually no one of authority in the newsroom makes a move unmeasured against management's politics, actual or perceived. At the Fair and Balanced network, everyone knows management's point of view, and, in case they're not sure how to get it on air, The Memo is there to remind them. [5] </dd></dl> In a subsequent interview with Tim Greive at Salon, Reina expanded on his brief initial note to Romenesko and explained how the bias of Fox management permeated the newsroom.
Asked for further examples, Reina described a story he worked on. "It was, I would say, about three years ago. I was assigned to do a special on the environment, some issue involving pollution. When my boss and I talked as to what this thing was all about, what they were looking for, he said to me: 'You understand, you know, it's not going to come out the pro-environmental side.' And I said, 'It will come out however it comes out.' And he said, 'You can obviously give both sides, but just make sure that the pro-environmentalists don't get the last word,' he said." Reina declined to do the story.
Pressed for further examples, he told Grieve of one affecting coverage of the Middle East. "I'll give you another example from that memo. When the Palestinian suicide bombings started last year, shortly after they started, one of the memos came down and suggested, 'Wouldn't it be better if we used 'homicide bombing' because the word 'suicide' puts the focus on and memorializes the perpetrator rather than the victims?' OK, never mind the fact that any bombing that kills is a homicide bombing. What would you call a suicide bombing where the perpetrator isn't killed? An intended suicidal homicide bombing? It got ridiculous. It may be ridiculous, but if you watch Fox now, you'll frequently hear suicide bombings described as 'homicide bombings,' right? ," he said.
"I'll tell you, it's interesting. On that same day [that Fox management distributed a memo suggesting suicide bombings be called 'homicide bombings'], the White House had made the same suggestion -- well, the Bush administration, whether it was the White House or the Pentagon or whatever. That's the background to it. By the next day, enough people [at Fox] were saying, 'What about this?' So the next day's memo kind of reluctantly said, 'Well, you could use either one.' But by then, everyone -- and again, we're talking about young people who don't have any perspective on this; all they know is that you do what they're told -- they know what management's feeling about this is. So ... it's 'homicide bombings.' And that's the beginnings of a new P.C," he said.[6]
Matt Gross, who left Fox News in March 2001 after working as a web journalist and editor, wrote to Romenesko about Reina's note:
<dl><dd>Let me just say that the right-wing bias was there in the newsroom, up-front and obvious, from the day a certain executive editor was sent down from the channel to bring us in line with their coverage. His first directive to us: Seek out stories that cater to angry, middle-aged white men who listen to talk radio and yell at their televisions. (Oh, how I'd love to stick quotation marks around what is nearly a direct quote.) </dd></dl> <dl><dd>To me, FNC reporters' laziness was the worst part of the bias. It wasn't that they were toeing some political line (though of course they were; see the embarrassing series on property rights from 2000), it was that the facts of a story just didn't matter at all. The idea was to get those viewers out of their seats, screaming at the TV, the politicians, the liberals -- whoever -- simply by running a provocative story," he wrote in October 2003. [7]. </dd></dl>
In covering the Iraq war last year, 73 percent of the stories on Fox
News included the opinions of the anchors and journalists reporting
them, a new study says. By contrast, 29 percent of the war reports on
MSNBC and 2 percent of those on CNN included the journalists' own
views. These findings -- the figures were similar for coverage of
other stories -- "seem to challenge" Fox's slogan of "we report, you
decide," says the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
. . . . . . . . . . .
Thanks Kiln...this is exactly why so many people watch Fox news. Left and right appreciate the honesty of the presentation.
Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb's institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it.
Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb's institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it.
DirecTV
Channel 356 MNBC
Channel 360 FNC
Give both equal time. Even if just in small pieces over days or weeks even. You will see the one station that is all about smash mouth bullcrap bent on sensationalism and the one that is more intellectually driven. You will be more informed on current events with one more than the other.
Channel 356 MNBC
Channel 360 FNC
Give both equal time. Even if just in small pieces over days or weeks even. You will see the one station that is all about smash mouth bullcrap bent on sensationalism and the one that is more intellectually driven. You will be more informed on current events with one more than the other.
Kiln sure does use a lot of words and spin, I just like simple math.
Pew Research, a non-partisan research think tank, as released it's results pertaining to media coverage by individual cable networks.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1011/color-of-news-coverage
http://journalism.org/node/13437
As stated in an earlier thread, the main street media and the newspaper coverage has been overwhelming favorable to Barack Obama. Now, the same study reflects that only Fox had balanced reporting. The looney lefties are so used to a one party stroke fest, that when an organization is actually balanced, they think it's biased.
Overall media coverage (positive / negative) Obama 36/29 McCain 14/57
MSNBC Obama 43/14 McCain 10/73 (are you fucking kidding me?)
CNN Obama 36/39 McCain 13/61 (we have no bias )
Fox Obama 25/40 McCain 22/40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox News 25% positive coverage for the Democrat, 40% negative
Fox News 22% positive coverage for the Republican, 40% negative
that's fair and balanced
now spin that with some psycho analysis of personality disorders why don't cha
Pew Research, a non-partisan research think tank, as released it's results pertaining to media coverage by individual cable networks.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1011/color-of-news-coverage
http://journalism.org/node/13437
As stated in an earlier thread, the main street media and the newspaper coverage has been overwhelming favorable to Barack Obama. Now, the same study reflects that only Fox had balanced reporting. The looney lefties are so used to a one party stroke fest, that when an organization is actually balanced, they think it's biased.
Overall media coverage (positive / negative) Obama 36/29 McCain 14/57
MSNBC Obama 43/14 McCain 10/73 (are you fucking kidding me?)
CNN Obama 36/39 McCain 13/61 (we have no bias )
Fox Obama 25/40 McCain 22/40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox News 25% positive coverage for the Democrat, 40% negative
Fox News 22% positive coverage for the Republican, 40% negative
that's fair and balanced
now spin that with some psycho analysis of personality disorders why don't cha
Ya I know what you mean. Their reporting of the news, if you can call it that is like watching Judges Brown and Judy. They bring on the losers of the world, make fun of them and then decide who should be awarded the 19 inch black and white TV. They play to their base and the ratings show it. GE owns them and we all know how well that company is doing. Hannity, O'Reilly and the knew kid Beck would not lower their professional integrity by interviewing the dyke.
Thats true of any single source...
