Political leanings on the USMB Board

Oh. The Right is supposed to run failing Leftwing Radio Stations and make them profitable for the Left?

No thanks. I'd rather to a job that is not quite that thankless.

Dude, lets all call up NPR and say Obama is a communist.

NPR isn't an entertainment station looking to bring huge guffaws from idiots who mistakenly tune in while looking for their favorite rock channel. If anyone called NPR with that comment, you can be sure NPR would file it away "in the shredder of logic, reason, and normal human thought processes."
 
This board has always leaned right of center, in general. Still it is one of the more diverse boards that I have posted on. It is one of the few in which political affiliation is not even considered for staff selection.

i would have to agree, this board is very diverse. i belong to another board that is fairly diverse, though some great lefty members left. there are nutjobs and every board, no matter the size of the board. this board has great posters on both sides of the aisle. though we rarely agree, i like jillian, ravi, goldcatt, and a few others...you see, they have finally accepted that i am always right
:eusa_angel:

Oh, really? :razz:

Doesn't bother me being a member of the minority. The debaters on either side aren't trying to silence other views. The board isn't trying to silence any views. And the poo-flinging hack monkeys aren't worth wasting time on. So who cares?

Hear hear...
 
reading for comprehension is a good thing.
Oh, I comprehend del. Capitalism has made me quite a wealthy man in between two stints in the military. Yeah, us former military sure don't understand capitalism allright...LMAO!

there was nothing in the original post criticizing capitalism.

as i said, reading comprehension is a good thing.
Did I say he was critisizing capitalism?....Noooooooooo.

The idiot was trying to say us former military don't understand capitalism. I simply pointed out that capitalism is what's always made this country strong.

Yes, you definitely need to take a comprehension course, buddy!

Christ man. It must suck going through life with your head buried so far up your ass that you can talk to your friggin' teeth!

:razz:
 
Oh, I comprehend del. Capitalism has made me quite a wealthy man in between two stints in the military. Yeah, us former military sure don't understand capitalism allright...LMAO!

there was nothing in the original post criticizing capitalism.

as i said, reading comprehension is a good thing.
Did I say he was critisizing capitalism?....Noooooooooo.

The idiot was trying to say us former military don't understand capitalism. I simply pointed out that capitalism is what's always made this country strong.

Yes, you definitely need to take a comprehension course, buddy!

Christ man. It must suck going through life with your head buried so far up your ass that you can talk to your friggin' teeth!

:razz:
:rofl:

it must suck going through life thinking your mouth isn't in your head.
 
It's not just this board, bub.

Those of us who are not Progressives (i.e. ranging from Moderate to Conservative) are not going to be silenced by the hyper Left. Your end of the spectrum has controlled the mainstream media and academia for years - and you begrudge us having a voice.

Tough Shit.

Why are you so hostile?? Why can't you righties treat people the way you want to be treated?? You are the ones that always start shit. Always. Nobody said anything to you that would make you respond like that. Grow up.

you must be joking......i live in the sf bay area....if i go to a dinner party and so much as question the topic being discussed....the venom and hate overflows .....

HA, try living in Texas. Pick a city. My brother lives in Houston, his son lives in San Antonio, they are both apolitical and the environment is so hostile they have to weigh just about every word in any gathering or it's apt to be taken the wrong way, and then whole conversations errupt into mudslinging.
 
Air America failed because nobody wanted to listen to it. You could have supported it if it were important to you. NPR receives government handouts and has a very liberal editorial viewpoint. It's not the right's fault that the left can't run a viable business on the radio.

A foothold in television is just that "a foothold" - the majority of editorial content on TV is left leaning.

The internet, that GAWD, is wide open territory. The low overhead of running a website makes it the most "democratic" form of media on the planet - anybody can post news stories and commentary. We should all hope it stays that way.

Air America failed because nobody ever listened to it in the first place.

This is my problem with those who kick, cry, and scream that those pesky Liberals control the media, they have no real clue of reality. The right controls the radio waves. The right has Fox News. The right has just as much of the internet as the left.

Within five years, the internet will have taken over the #1 spot as to where people get their main source of news. And then people like you will have nothing to cry about.

And if you want to complain about the amount of Liberals in Academia, here's a solution:

Get more Conservative scientists and professors.

It's not that difficult. You demean those who worked hard for years in their respective areas by trying to marginalize them to one sort of viewpoint or political ideology.

Edit: I just noticed your spilled milk comment over NPR.

From their wikipedia page:

About 2% of NPR's funding comes from bidding on government grants and programs, chiefly the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; the remainder comes from member station dues, foundation grants, and corporate underwriting.

The reason that the sole right leaning television outlet has such high ratings, and perhaps as you predict the internet will take over as the number one source, is because people were tired of being fed an opinion by editorialists who disguised themselves as journalists. It's funny when the left whines about many of the editorial programs on FOX. It's like they are offended when people don't hide their agenda.

What's offensive is that FOX says it doesn't have an agenda. The ol' fair and balanced thingie, you know.
 
Point is, there is plenty of room in Academia for anyone who is not leftist.


^^^ The heartbreak of delusional thinking on parade.

You are clueless regarding the environment on most university campuses.

I suggest you search David Horowitz for a bit of EDUMACATIONIZINGMENT.

Sure, search the writings of a far-right demagogue for a fair opinion. Uh huh...Soon as I finish this apple.
 
Gotta be honest here, when I became a member, it seemed more like a right leaning board. For the record, it's why I joined....I'm on the right side.

I find it odd that you are concerned that your left leaning fellow posters are posting less due to the influx of righties coming to join the conversation. I also think it's funny that you call the input from the right as mere talking points and reflecting no individual thought. We all use discussion points to start conversations, debates and full-on arguments. Please don't play the division card like that.

I have asked several times and never gotten a straight answer, so I'll ask again since it seems to be the subject...What is your definition (not Webster's) of "TALKING POINT"?

You should welcome the opposite viewpoints...it gives you something to talk about. Otherwise it's just a leftist echo chamber talking about the things that Obama has yet to achieve.

Hey, wait a sec, I was not saying by any means that ALL right-wing posts were talking points. There are many right-wing posters that stick to meaningful debate and don't fit the talking point mold.

I was saying that there has been a major influx of this type of post, mainly from the right-wing side.

The left also has their talking points, though I personally try to veer away from blindly repeating them as much as possible.
 
What we've been seeing is the left wingers up here growing more surly as their beloved Obama continues to ass it up. They have no excuses anymore so, surly is the only way they can turn.

It's quite funny and entertaining, to say the least.

Just look at that Dr Gregg dude. He's ready to blow an aneurysm right out his freakin' ear at this point!

He sure seems to keep you people on your toes, eh?
 
Actually, Air America failed because only 21% of our citizens identify with their loony agenda. Advertisers weren't going to pony up to reach such a small fan base. After all, biznezz is biznezz!

21% of the population would be quite a bit more than enough to keep a radio station going I think.

The thing is, there's a difference between mostly believing in an ideology, and believing in an ideology so much that you're willing to spread BS propaganda to further your cause.

Air America was like a bunch of Rush Limbaughs put together in one place, but on the left.

The reason it failed is that rational people don't want to listen to that kind of BS, except for occasional entertainment purposes, and the left (wrong or right), prides itself on being more rational than their counterparts.

The only reason MSNBC survives is that it attracts enough crazy radical loons on the left to keep it going. And don't even get me started on FoxNews.
 
Last edited:
You're not ignorant, just stupid, if you can't acknowledge that for decades many in the media presented themselves as unbiased journalists, but had a definite perspective that they insinuated into their "reporting". You don't give people much credit to be able to distinguish news from opinion, but I appreciate your concern that they will be fooled by a label.:lol:

That's because for many decades, they were unbiased. Since the 80's, the political lines were drawn. Walter comes to mind as to what a journalist should be.

I'm not saying anything about the people. I'm talking about the dishonesty by "Fox News" by calling themselves a news station when they are no more than a right wing outlet.

"Activist" journalism goes further back than the 80's. Anyone remember Edward R. Murrow? He stood up to the alarmist Joe McCarthy as nothing more than a propagandist who was responsible for keeping the nation petrified and he (Murrow) nearly saw his entire career go up in smoke because of the backlash from McCarthy and his thugs.
 
Rightwingers are conditioned to flood boards. It's in the handbook.

I agree that they are much more pack orientated in my observation.

And yer not?

strongbow-6-pack.jpg

:lol: I first read that beer label as "Strolling Bones." She has her own beer?
 
I was a very active member of another forum for almost seven years and eventually left when it was almost impossible to discuss any conservative or right wing point of view without the leftist trolls descending with ad hominem, personal insults, snarky comments, and whatever else they had in their arsenal to destroy the thread. The forum was about 10 to 1 left leaning and despite making several friends there, both left and right, many of whom I remain in contact with, it just wasn't fun anymore.

I have found USMB to be a great mix of thoughtful leftwing and toughtful rightwing members and even though the numbnuts from both camps do mangle a lot of threads, I have been happy here. Sometimes I check on New Posts, and every single thread on the first page is some leftwing point of view. I suspect the balance is pretty good here.

The Left has a strong advantage in radio, television, print media, the public education system, and the entertainment industry. The Right has a strong advantage in talk radio and Nascar. I think it is pretty evenly split in the sporting world. I have found a lot more liberal sites on the Internet than conservative ones, but there is sufficient balance that people can be fully informed.

But I love USMB.

I agree with all of this post. I am just hoping that what you experienced on the other thread doesn't start to happen here in the other direction.

IMO, there seem to be symptoms of such a trend beginning.

Of course this could all be in my imagination.

The tide turns from season to season. There for awhile, Bush supporters were having a rough go of it because so much that was happening was simply unsupportable. It was hard to argue a conservative ideology when so many of our standard bearers were behaving badly. Many left this or that message board because they got tired of getting beat up trying.

Now much is happening in the Obama administration that is simply unsupportable, and his supporters are having a rough go of it. It is more and more difficult to support indefensible behavior of the standard bearers for the Left and I imagine some of those on the Left are becoming weary of getting beat up when they try.

And I know when I am attacked or criticized personally, that feels a lot more important to me than it feels to anybody else. Knowing that does help to put it into perspective. :)

You know what my hope is? That we all get sick and tired of putting up with inadequate or incompetent standard bearers and find ways to agree on the most important things so that we can fix it.

Obama supporters like me are "having a rough go at it" only because I can understand why HIS priorities aren't yours. But I also understand WHY decisions were made (regarding the economy) and WHY Obama continues the fight for health care reform. So trying to adequately make those defenses becomes frustrating when the only solutions the right appears able to come up with are long-term ideological ones that they hope would be more workable. So, that said, I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph.
 
What's offensive is that FOX says it doesn't have an agenda. The ol' fair and balanced thingie, you know.

No doubt, at least MSNBC and Air America didn't put on airs of impartiality like FoxNews does.

That doesn't make me want to listen or watch them, but it does give them just a tiny hair more credibility, if just a hair.
 
Dude said:
I can tell when Fakes News' --and even the decidedly lefty CNN's-- reporting of events ends and the opinion begins.

That's not at all the case on DNCNBC.

Say what you want about CNN, but it's the only cable channel that sticks to NEWS more than commentary ON the news.

Can CNN Survive on News Alone?
by Stephen Battaglio March 05, 2010 08:45 AM EST

When big news breaks, as it did with the devastating earthquake in Haiti, CNN can count on Anderson Cooper to swoop in and provide compelling coverage. But even during a month when CNN had a story in which it truly shined, Fox News Channel had its best January ratings ever. It’s nothing new. Appointment programs with right-leaning commentators Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity have helped make FNC the dominant ratings leader in cable news while, from the left, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow regularly top CNN in the 25-to-54 age group that advertisers favor.

So why isn’t CNN U.S. president Jon Klein worried? He thinks his channel’s straight-ahead news coverage has become more valuable as his competitors draw viewers with opinion. “Last year was our most profitable year ever,” he says. “We’ve doubled our profit just in the last four years by being the only reliable provider of TV news day in and day out, online and internationally.”

Noting that CNN’s 2009 prime-time audience was higher than it was in 2005, Klein says his network has not been hurt by FNC, which he believes is in a different business with its partisan personalities. “We cover the news,” he says. “They are about fomenting outrage. They do it very well. Their viewers stay longer. That’s about a state of mind.” (A Fox News Channel spokesperson said: “We don’t respond to presidents of fifth-place news networks. The last time we looked, Jon was losing to the Weather Channel, so call us back when he and CNN regain relevancy.”) Fox News points out that its regular news programs also top CNN by wide margins.

How can CNN still be doing well financially while being so far behind in the ratings? A competing TV news executive says CNN benefits from the legacy of being the first—and for years the only—cable news network. Although it has no bearing on ad rates, more people tune in to CNN over the course of a month than its competitors. The brand name’s strength helps sell ad packages over multiple platforms that include
cnn.com (the top cable news Web site) and its own talk channel, HLN. CNN also appeals to advertisers who are not comfortable with any controversy that cable news commentators can occasionally stir up. “As long as the money is coming in, no one is complaining,” the exec said. “When people come in who don’t normally watch cable news, they go to CNN. The question is how long can [the network] go on like that as more people get their news headlines on the Internet? The news junkies who watch every night want to share their ideas.”

Klein says he has no plans to change his strategy. He is even sticking with Campbell Brown’s opinion-free 8pm news show, which regularly gets swamped by The O'Reilly Factor and Olbermann. “It’s an oasis of reason,” Klein says. “That’s where we want to be. Good journalism is good business. Why should we try and imitate what the other guys are doing?”

TV Guide Magazine | The Biz | Can CNN Survive on News Alone?
 
What's offensive is that FOX says it doesn't have an agenda. The ol' fair and balanced thingie, you know.

No doubt, at least MSNBC and Air America didn't put on airs of impartiality like FoxNews does.

That doesn't make me want to listen or watch them, but it does give them just a tiny hair more credibility, if just a hair.

Err Amerika at least made no pretense about their far left political leanings.

But MSLSD does pretend to be objective. So does NBC. Have you ever seen that fucking loser anchor, Brian Williams of NBC's evening news, lecturing America (in one of the network's commercials for their NCB evening news program) about how hard they have to work to break these amazingly complex difficult stories down sufficiently for us poor unwashed masses to have any hopes of grasping?

FoxNews DOES present both sides the majority of stories and much of the time. If it ends up still being tilted a little to the right, who cares? Every other major news outlet is tilted disturbingly to the left

and almost all journalists pretend to be objective. Almost none of them are objective.
 
Watch a small child faced with something out of the ordinary and soon you'll see a reaction, maybe just a turning away, or a running away, often a cry and a look somewhere for comfort. As children we are all conservative - for the unknown, for the different, can be scary. Some of us grow up, and we accept the basic complexity, ambiguity, and confusion of life. Tragedy too. And hopefully we want it to be better.

"It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn't get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man." *

For others, change is hard, conservatism is simply reactive emotion. I've never had a conservative tell me something conservatism has done for the nation. It is simply a holding back on what is, and sometimes that may be OK, but certainly not always. Exploration and change scares the soul of conservatives.

I am reading Manchester's 'the power and the glory,' (it is long, so you may hear this often) and it so parallels today, it just amazes me. The corporations, business, republicans, conservatives over 80 years ago are the same as today. FDR was a one term president, a commie, un-American and on and on and on. Even Beck is there as Father Coughlin.

One true thing you can say for conservatives and others who hide behind other labels such as libertarian or independent (not all independents) is they haven't changed much in forever... That is one reason I post less today, it's the same old story a tale of love and glory....as the world turns.....life is just too short to always blame others for the evolution of society to some other place....



'I think, watch and babble' One of my favorites, always worth the time. Joe on Ideology.

"So I try to write about irreducible human experience or observations (or just plain emotion, the value and importance of which has been vastly underestimated, completely discarded in fact, thanks to the worship of science and supposed rationality -- much the same as the power of free will has been vastly overstated, so that the captive masses can entertain the illusion of freedom). To the degree that I do contrive toward persuasion, I do so by using disarmingly plain language. But I don't try to sway readers. I really don't. I am simply an irrepressible loudmouth. The power of persuasion is what has gotten us into this mess, and besides, there are just too many screaming voices in this workhouse nation already."

Joe Bageant: Ideology discussions have been demonized


Maybe it's all in our heads! http://www.psych.nyu.edu/amodiolab/Amodio et al. (2007) Nature Neuro.pdf

"Political scientists and psychologists have noted that, on average, conservatives show more structured and persistent cognitive styles, whereas liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty. We tested the hypothesis that these profiles relate to differences in general neurocognitive functioning using event-related potentials, and found that greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity, suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern."


*Richard Feynman

PS MSM is conservative through and through and Academia is a mixed bag, Conservatives, please face it, the issues you hate are mostly in your mind.

All of that confirms what I believe, that conservatives are the "what if" party, based on their ideals of how things should be, as opposed to Democrats (liberals) who are the "what is" party based on realities of now.
 
Wrong again, on the reverse side of the argument.

then how is the one blaringly conservative news station such as fox get such high ratings? WHy Rush and company get such high ratings? many conservatives seem to hear what they already believe. Those guys spout what they know their audience wants to hear, regardless of how stupid the argument they are making is.
If so many people want to hear far left wackaloons, like Al Frankenstein and Keith Olbertwit, why is it that they can't draw flies for advertisers?

A monkey-poo posting? Why is it you think that adding cute little extensions to people's names somehow lends more credence to your bullshit? Franken is now a Senator (thanks in part to his reputation at Air America), and Olbermann just signed another five-year contract. So....what the fuck are you talking about in the first place?
 
It would seem that of late, the population of this board has taken a rather pronounced turn to the right.

New members have typically been right-wing oriented, and the posts have taken a decidedly right-wing talking point direction, including much in the way of repetitive spam.

It seems that many of my fellow posters on the left-hand side of things, have found this unpalatable and are posting less and less..

It would be unfortunate to see USMB turn into a right-wing echo chamber, ala Townhall.com.

Perhaps folks on both sides might want to talk about this issue and express their political leanings to see if my assertion has any validity whatsoever.

I, myself, am a leftie.

Really. Why is it that the lefties that permeate this board always have that same, lame accusation?

This board leans neither way, nor will I allow it to. Everybody gets to say what they want and only the retards get squashed.

Questions?

If everybody but the lamebrains get squashed, then how do you not "allow" the board to lean one way or the other? I definitely see it leaning right. Don't forget that a lot of Hannity refugees wind up here, so by simple word of mouth (finger to finger?), there often are newbies from the right appearing in clusters. That said, I admit I could be wrong, because I don't post at night so I don't really know what gets discussed then unless a thread carries over to mid-morning my time. Whatever...
 
As indicated by the recent posts about different media outlets, I think we agree that there is bias on all of them. I try to watch them all at one time or another.

I would hope that since the media has become biased, in whatever direction, that the best we can hope for is that there remains enough outlets on both sides so those that choose to can get something resembling a 'middle' view by paying attention to all of them.

Not saying all are going to do so, just saying it's good to have the opportunity to do so.

My personal favorite media pastime this winter has been to watch Beck on FOX at 3, and then turn it over to MSNBC to watch Ed at 4. Now that's entertainment! Taken together, these guys are a riot. I would love to see them sign up to do a show together, imagine the entertainment value there!

No, I am not calling either one of them news, and the times are local for me.
 

Forum List

Back
Top