Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,827
- 1,790
Why? Is she going to have to actually think?
Is Alliebaba a female? I didn't.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why? Is she going to have to actually think?
The University of Connecticut Department of Public Policy released the results of a survey of both journalists and the general public.
Some of the more interesting findings:
Asked who they voted for in the past election, the journalists reported picking Kerry over Bush by 68% to 25%. In this sample of 300 journalists, from both newspapers and TV, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 3 to 1 -- but about half claim to be Independent. As in previous polls, a majority (53%) called their political orientation "moderate," versus 28% liberal and 10% conservative.
----------------
Why bother arguing about this new liberal myth....Reporters/Journalists,
When asked they proudly admit they are lefties....they don't even try to claim they are fair or balanced.....
http://www.capitaleye.org/mediacontribs.6.2.03.asp
Every example ever given is in fact NOT a news program. When you get a NEWS program let me know, OK?
Entertainment shows like Riley and the like are NOT news, they are OP Eds. They do not have to EVER be fair and balanced. The problem with you people is you can't understand the obvious.
GunnyL, the only reason you don't see is a slant is because it's slanted in your direction. The power of denial is overwhelming. Since I'm neither a republican or democrat, I see the bias in each. Fox is clearly more biased than CNN, but since CNN has to compete with other networks for the democrat slant viewers it's ratings will be lower. This lets fox whore around the title of most watched, which only further promotes the stupidity of calling themselves the most watched because they are the most balanced.
Thompson charges Fox News is biased against his campaign
By Bob Cusack | Posted 11/25/07 11:05 a.m. [ET]
November 25, 2007
Former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) suggested on Sunday that Fox News is biased against his campaign, charging that the network highlights commentators who have been critical of his run for the presidency.
In an interview on "Fox News Sunday," host Chris Wallace pressed Thompson on how some conservatives have lambasted Thompson's campaign and showed clips of Fox conservative commentators Charles Krauthammer and Fred Barnes criticizing the former senator.
Thompson said, "This has been a constant mantra of Fox, to tell you the truth." He noted that other conservatives have praised his bid for the GOP nomination and took issue with a Fox promo that focused on polling in New Hampshire, where Thompson is registering in the single digits.
He said he is running second in national polls and has been leading or tied for the lead in South Carolina for "a long, long time."
Thompson, in a firm, but measured tone, scolded Wallace: "...for you to highlight nothing but the negatives in terms of the polls and then put on your own guys who have been predicting for four months, really, that I couldn't do it, kind of skew things a little bit. There's a lot of other opinion out there."
Krauthammer and Barnes regularly appear on Fox. Krauthammer is a syndicated columnist and Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.
Wallace denied to Thompson that "Fox has been going after you" and asked, "Do you know anybody who thinks you've run a great campaign, sir?"
Thompson responded, "It's not for me to come here and try to convince you that somebody else thinks I've run a great campaign." He added that National Review magazine has praised him for issuing detailed policy proposals on Social Security and immigration.
Following the sharp exchange, a smiling Wallace said, "I'm glad I asked the question because I got a heck of an answer."
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news...s-biased-against-his-campaign-2007-11-25.html
hehehehehe..
you fanbois crack me up. Almost as rabid as the Apple crowd.
hehehe.. as if Hannity and Oreilly are MERELY op ed shows... Which, may I ask, who is the LIBERAL equivilent at any of the other channels? If MSNBC had two op ed shows chock full of liberal opinions I could only imagine the "liberal bias" bullhorn from fox fanbois. I've already listed a comparison between MSNBC and fox. Besides Juan "I agree with Sean" Williams and Alan "backbone like a noodle" Colmes who the hell else on fox, besides geraldo's occasional clash with Bill and "missing white girl in the caribean" vansustren, is even REMOTELY CLOSE to being liberal minded?
I'll remind you jokers of that pile of sewage FOX tried to have compete with John Stewart... Indeed, nothing like a bastion on non-bias to come up with what amounts to The Right Brothers (hahahahaha!) of news satyr, eh?
I get the feeling that Mike Wallace could be busted taking money from the GOP in some elaborate SKulls style fraternal cerimony with black candles, robes and chanting and you'd still insist that what he does on his private time makes no difference in what he does for fox news.
It doesn't break my heart if you refuse to see it. Hell, considering the stubborn polarity of the 04 election I pretty much expect it. Like I said, unbiased news channels usually DO tryto compete with the comedy channel's John Stewart by making a complete right wing rip off, don't they?
also, I've already posted my analysis of fox talking heads versus MSNBC. It's BIG H little c for a reason. Perhaps you'd like to remind me who is the liberal equivilant to all the "harmeless" right wing op eds on msnbc then? Hell, even CNN's posterboy for op ed is Glen "the raving lunatic trying to tap the addhd niche" beck.
what the hell does dan rather have to do with MSNBC or CNN? Does he have a show? If he's been a pundit in any frequency does this mean that I can pile DICK "i wish I could have me some of that bill" MORRIS on the heaping bation of fox's obvious bias?
for real, dude.. at least be coherent when pointing a finger.
Dan Rather ate his own crow. It has nothing to do with specific networks despite your generalization.
IM talking about MSNBC and CNN. Let's not sidestep here. I asked you a few questions directly comparing Fox news to MSNBC and CNN. Perhaps you'd like to offer an answer?
you are going to get boring if you keep insisting that there is no reason to percieve a bias with fox.
Like I said:
1. I've compared the pundits who have shows on fox with MSNBC. I asked you who is MSNBCs version of hannity and oreilly. Do you want to debate this or keep dodging the question?
2. Why else would fox news even ATTEMPT a right wing newes satyr show copeting with the daily show from THE COMEDY CHANNEL if they had no right wing bias?
3. Besides the two jellyfish (colmes and williams) and two micro-political talking heads (geraldo and greta) who the hell else is on fox news representing a liberal perspective ON PAR WITH MIKE WALLACE AND BRIT HUME?
Like I said, you would deny a bias even if wallace had a tattoo of the GOP elephant on his ass while admitting on air that he is working towards the political directive of rupert murdoch. It doesn't break my heart, or shock me really, that you would insist otherwise. Im challenging you to answer specific things that I get the feeling you know would make your assertions about fox news an even hotter, brighter bonfire of laughter. Are you going to play the game here or repeat the slogans and toss up dan rather strawmen?