Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Media Bias

1356789

Posts

  • ZoolanderZoolander Registered User
    edited January 2009
    Terrendos wrote: »
    Zoolander wrote: »
    Terrendos wrote: »
    Zoolander wrote: »
    One Fairness Doctrine, coming up! What a silly, dumb idea in any medium.

    Did I say anything about controlling any private news? No. I suggested that, since the government is paying the tab for PBS, they should have some control to make sure it's fair. It's quickly growing obvious that you're antagonizing me merely because I have an opinion that differs from yours. In the future, please read what I'm saying before critizing me.

    For the record, the fairness doctrine would be much worse for conservatives anyway, since it would kill conservative news radio.
    The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has nine board members who serve six-year terms and are selected by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate.
    Presently (May 2007) the CPB board contains five Republicans, two Democrats, and one independent, leaving one seat vacant. According to the Public Broadcasting Act, the White House cannot appoint persons of the same political party to more than 5 of the 9 CPB board seats. Thus, President George W. Bush may not appoint another Republican to the one vacant seat and there seems to be no movement to appoint anyone to the seat.
    What's quickly growing obvious is that you are not the sharpest tool in the shed.

    Sounds like somebody important agreed with me. Should I be surprised? Well, I knew I was smart, but I guess I called that one pretty well, didn't I?

    EDIT: What's quickly growing obvious is that you aren't reading what I'm writing, and are making invalid assumptions.

    I guess I did make the invalid assumption that you knew anything about PBS and the CPB before whining about bias.

    It just shows, really, how desperately the losing side wants to blame everything on 'bias' or 'the man'.

  • JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    A brief fairness doctrine rant:

    The fairness doctrine, as implemented in the past, would do nothing to conservative radio.


    Conservative radio hosts are always on about it, but they're flatly wrong. The fairness doctrine only ever applied to issues where broadcast range and availability impinged on public interest - IE the only radio station in a town was republican owned and wasn't correctly informing people or was, say, blocking one arguably valuable viewpoint from the air. It was essentially a monopoly law applied to politics.

    It would NEVER apply to commentary on national channels for commentary, with competition both as commentary and as news. Case law on the doctrine ALWAYS stipulated that it was a measure to preserve, not suppress, speech.

    The only compulsion the FD carried was that stations (remember this was in 1949 when there weren't stations for everything) did devote some time to public issues and that that time did present both sides. This could be editorial or straight news or interview or debate or PSAs or almost anything. It had no "equal time" component - that's a seperate piece of broadcast campaign etiquette that is law some places and not others. Most stations easily met all requirements of the FD simply by quoting both parties to an issue - a Sean Hannity hatchet interview is more than sufficient for the FD. What would not be would be Sean Hannity, the only news anchor serving a market, simply telling the audience second hand that the democratic viewpoint wasn't worth listening too, or omitting it alltogether. You had to be engaged in GROSS information manipulation with no competition for the fairness doctrine to ever get invoked against you.

    The fairness doctrine has NOTHING to do with Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Mike Regan or any of the other blowhards who talk about it during their daily show, and they ALL took media courses and know it.

    They are reacting to one piece of snark a few years ago, where a democrat suggested the doctrine be brought back for the election. The democrat was not someone with any electoral power, and no substantial/legitimate legislative attempts to bring back the doctrine are in the works.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Terrendos wrote: »
    Sounds like somebody important agreed with me.

    Sounds more like you had no idea how PBS works. Which, given that you don't watch it, isn't all that surprising.


    And I thought there were 2 independents on the board. Huh.

    tea-1.jpg
  • TerrendosTerrendos Decorative Monocle Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Terrendos wrote: »
    Sounds like somebody important agreed with me.

    Sounds more like you had no idea how PBS works. Which, given that you don't watch it, isn't all that surprising.


    And I thought there were 2 independents on the board. Huh.

    I openly admitted that I didn't watch PBS news, but knew that a government-paid news station should have government oversight. You proceeded to mock me for my bizarre and foreign ideas, and then you proved that I was right.

    Honestly, I should just leave now. If you guys can prove me right without me being here, I don't think I need to waste my time arguing with you.

    Sig1.png
  • ZoolanderZoolander Registered User
    edited January 2009
    Terrendos wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Terrendos wrote: »
    Sounds like somebody important agreed with me.

    Sounds more like you had no idea how PBS works. Which, given that you don't watch it, isn't all that surprising.


    And I thought there were 2 independents on the board. Huh.

    I openly admitted that I didn't watch PBS news, but knew that a government-paid news station should have government oversight. You proceeded to mock me for my bizarre and foreign ideas, and then you proved that I was right.

    Honestly, I should just leave now. If you guys can prove me right without me being here, I don't think I need to waste my time arguing with you.

    See, I'm pretty sure everyone thought you were talking about controlling private media, because PBS is already overseen by the government.

  • CygnusZCygnusZ Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    PBS is not a government run station like BBC or NHK, most of the funding for PBS comes from corporate sponsors and viewer donations. The government is explicitly forbidden from doing anything to interefere or control CPB funded programming by the Programming Act of 1967.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Terrendos wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Terrendos wrote: »
    Sounds like somebody important agreed with me.

    Sounds more like you had no idea how PBS works. Which, given that you don't watch it, isn't all that surprising.


    And I thought there were 2 independents on the board. Huh.

    I openly admitted that I didn't watch PBS news, but knew that a government-paid news station should have government oversight. You proceeded to mock me for my bizarre and foreign ideas, and then you proved that I was right.

    Honestly, I should just leave now. If you guys can prove me right without me being here, I don't think I need to waste my time arguing with you.

    It's not a government funded news station, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting does not act the way that you proposed. We were balking at the idea of a board of censors overseeing a show and making sure that there is an opposing viewpoint aired. As if there's an alternative viewpoint to 'gravity pulls things towards each other' or only one opposing viewpoint to 'upper marginal tax cuts are a panacea.'

    tea-1.jpg
  • JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    The people that "run" PBS don't have much content control, either. That's not really how Public Broadcasting works, internally.

  • oldmankenoldmanken Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Zoolander wrote: »
    Terrendos wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Terrendos wrote: »
    Sounds like somebody important agreed with me.

    Sounds more like you had no idea how PBS works. Which, given that you don't watch it, isn't all that surprising.


    And I thought there were 2 independents on the board. Huh.

    I openly admitted that I didn't watch PBS news, but knew that a government-paid news station should have government oversight. You proceeded to mock me for my bizarre and foreign ideas, and then you proved that I was right.

    Honestly, I should just leave now. If you guys can prove me right without me being here, I don't think I need to waste my time arguing with you.

    See, I'm pretty sure everyone thought you were talking about controlling private media, because PBS is already overseen by the government.

    Yeah, but if he frames it the way he has it makes him look right and feel special.

  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Skimmed the thread and had a relevant quote from Hunter S. Thompson pop into my head and felt like sharing:

    "Objective journalism is one of the main reasons American politics has been allowed to be so corrupt for so long. You can't be objective about Nixon."

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    The people that "run" PBS don't have much content control, either. That's not really how Public Broadcasting works, internally.

    Plus the shows that are the most criticized for being 'too liberal' are produced by different outfits. Granted it's mostly WETA, WGBH, WNET, KCET, and WTTW, but still you'd have to police 'em all.

    tea-1.jpg
  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Is it even legal for the government to exercise any kind of political control over PBS? Especially because they're providing funding. I remember hearing how the government can't broadcast in the US that channel they produce for the purpose of competing with Al Jazeera in the Middle East because it would violate some act about propaganda.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Hoz wrote: »
    Is it even legal for the government to exercise any kind of political control over PBS? Especially because they're providing funding. I remember hearing how the government can't broadcast in the US that channel they produce for the purposes of competing with Al Jazeera in the Middle East because it would violate some act about propaganda.

    Al Hurra, and yes. We can engage in propaganda abroad but not here at home.

    tea-1.jpg
  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Zimmydoom wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    (primarily, with making sure it's biased in the direction he wants it to be).

    Well, that's what it's always about, isn't it? Sean Hannity is biased as hell. But so is Keith Olbermann. It's just that Olby is beholden to his audience, whereas Hannity feels alright saying just whatever the fuck his audience wants. The dumbfucks shouting about a bias in the media just need to come to grips with reality and drop their persecution complexes.

    This is technically correct. Keith Olbermann is not a journalist. He is a Professional Loud Guy. Fox News drones are by-and-large horribly uninformed and often quite stupid, but getting your info from Countdown or TDS isn't a whole lot better.

    Man I hate it when people rag on The Daily Show like that, and I can only imagine it comes from wanting to look fair by hitting liberals too. Yes, it has a strong bias, but just like people always talk about on this board they are open about it, and also don't let it get in the way of reporting what they view as the truth. Obama was hit on TDS, but the fact is that there wasn't much to hit him with if you want to stick with things that are legitimate. I've watched the show for a long time and am personally impressed with its coverage, and many university studies confirm that it's as good of a news source as a half hour of a "real" news show.

    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    New is totally not biased: more news at 11

    JKKaAGp.png
  • JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Cervetus wrote: »
    Zimmydoom wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    (primarily, with making sure it's biased in the direction he wants it to be).

    Well, that's what it's always about, isn't it? Sean Hannity is biased as hell. But so is Keith Olbermann. It's just that Olby is beholden to his audience, whereas Hannity feels alright saying just whatever the fuck his audience wants. The dumbfucks shouting about a bias in the media just need to come to grips with reality and drop their persecution complexes.

    This is technically correct. Keith Olbermann is not a journalist. He is a Professional Loud Guy. Fox News drones are by-and-large horribly uninformed and often quite stupid, but getting your info from Countdown or TDS isn't a whole lot better.

    Man I hate it when people rag on The Daily Show like that, and I can only imagine it comes from wanting to look fair by hitting liberals too. Yes, it has a strong bias, but just like people always talk about on this board they are open about it, and also don't let it get in the way of reporting what they view as the truth. Obama was hit on TDS, but the fact is that there wasn't much to hit him with if you want to stick with things that are legitimate. I've watched the show for a long time and am personally impressed with its coverage, and many university studies confirm that it's as good of a news source as a half hour of a "real" news show.


    I hate it when people talk about the daily show like it's news

    it's not news, it has NO obligation to follow any particular standard short of libel/slander.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Cervetus wrote: »
    Man I hate it when people rag on The Daily Show like that, and I can only imagine it comes from wanting to look fair by hitting liberals too. Yes, it has a strong bias, but just like people always talk about on this board they are open about it, and also don't let it get in the way of reporting what they view as the truth. Obama was hit on TDS, but the fact is that there wasn't much to hit him with if you want to stick with things that are legitimate. I've watched the show for a long time and am personally impressed with its coverage, and many university studies confirm that it's as good of a news source as a half hour of a "real" news show.

    Which 'real' news show? Because Jim Lehrer kicks ass, takes names, and then tells you about those names whose asses were kicked in a fairly monotone voice. Meanwhile, I've watched an hour of cable news and actually felt my brain cells dieing. That TDS is more educational than Lou Dobbs is a hurdle that the homeless guy by the 7-11 can make.

    tea-1.jpg
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Cervetus wrote: »
    Zimmydoom wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    (primarily, with making sure it's biased in the direction he wants it to be).

    Well, that's what it's always about, isn't it? Sean Hannity is biased as hell. But so is Keith Olbermann. It's just that Olby is beholden to his audience, whereas Hannity feels alright saying just whatever the fuck his audience wants. The dumbfucks shouting about a bias in the media just need to come to grips with reality and drop their persecution complexes.

    This is technically correct. Keith Olbermann is not a journalist. He is a Professional Loud Guy. Fox News drones are by-and-large horribly uninformed and often quite stupid, but getting your info from Countdown or TDS isn't a whole lot better.

    Man I hate it when people rag on The Daily Show like that, and I can only imagine it comes from wanting to look fair by hitting liberals too. Yes, it has a strong bias, but just like people always talk about on this board they are open about it, and also don't let it get in the way of reporting what they view as the truth. Obama was hit on TDS, but the fact is that there wasn't much to hit him with if you want to stick with things that are legitimate. I've watched the show for a long time and am personally impressed with its coverage, and many university studies confirm that it's as good of a news source as a half hour of a "real" news show.

    No, those studies show that people who watch it are as well or better informed. But that's because they consume a lot of news, not because they watch the Daily Show.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Cervetus wrote: »
    Zimmydoom wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    (primarily, with making sure it's biased in the direction he wants it to be).

    Well, that's what it's always about, isn't it? Sean Hannity is biased as hell. But so is Keith Olbermann. It's just that Olby is beholden to his audience, whereas Hannity feels alright saying just whatever the fuck his audience wants. The dumbfucks shouting about a bias in the media just need to come to grips with reality and drop their persecution complexes.

    This is technically correct. Keith Olbermann is not a journalist. He is a Professional Loud Guy. Fox News drones are by-and-large horribly uninformed and often quite stupid, but getting your info from Countdown or TDS isn't a whole lot better.

    Man I hate it when people rag on The Daily Show like that, and I can only imagine it comes from wanting to look fair by hitting liberals too. Yes, it has a strong bias, but just like people always talk about on this board they are open about it, and also don't let it get in the way of reporting what they view as the truth. Obama was hit on TDS, but the fact is that there wasn't much to hit him with if you want to stick with things that are legitimate. I've watched the show for a long time and am personally impressed with its coverage, and many university studies confirm that it's as good of a news source as a half hour of a "real" news show.


    I hate it when people talk about the daily show like it's news

    it's not news, it has NO obligation to follow any particular standard short of libel/slander.

    It shouldn't be news, but as mentioned below your post given how low the bar is set it's just as good.
    Cervetus wrote: »
    Zimmydoom wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    (primarily, with making sure it's biased in the direction he wants it to be).

    Well, that's what it's always about, isn't it? Sean Hannity is biased as hell. But so is Keith Olbermann. It's just that Olby is beholden to his audience, whereas Hannity feels alright saying just whatever the fuck his audience wants. The dumbfucks shouting about a bias in the media just need to come to grips with reality and drop their persecution complexes.

    This is technically correct. Keith Olbermann is not a journalist. He is a Professional Loud Guy. Fox News drones are by-and-large horribly uninformed and often quite stupid, but getting your info from Countdown or TDS isn't a whole lot better.

    Man I hate it when people rag on The Daily Show like that, and I can only imagine it comes from wanting to look fair by hitting liberals too. Yes, it has a strong bias, but just like people always talk about on this board they are open about it, and also don't let it get in the way of reporting what they view as the truth. Obama was hit on TDS, but the fact is that there wasn't much to hit him with if you want to stick with things that are legitimate. I've watched the show for a long time and am personally impressed with its coverage, and many university studies confirm that it's as good of a news source as a half hour of a "real" news show.

    No, those studies show that people who watch it are as well or better informed. But that's because they consume a lot of news, not because they watch the Daily Show.

    I believe I heard of a study that analyzed content, but I'd have to look for it.

    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
  • Red or AliveRed or Alive Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    CygnusZ wrote: »
    PBS is not a government run station like BBC or NHK, most of the funding for PBS comes from corporate sponsors and viewer donations. The government is explicitly forbidden from doing anything to interefere or control CPB funded programming by the Programming Act of 1967.

    The BBC isn't government-run at all, you silly goose. Only its World Service is funded by any kind of government body. Hence, it is routinely attacked by both pro and anti-Labour government newspapers for its perceived "bias".

    Carpe Diem. By the CROTCH.
  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Cervetus wrote: »
    I believe I heard of a study that analyzed content, but I'd have to look for it.

    There might be better articles about it, but this is the study I was talking about. http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/4159.html
    "It is clearly a humor show, first and foremost," Fox said of Stewart's program. "But there is some substance on there, and in some cases, like John Edwards announcing his candidacy, the news is made on the show. You have real newsmakers coming on, and yes, sometimes the banter and questions get a little silly, but there is also substantive dialogue going on … It's a legitimate source of news."
    "Interestingly, the average amounts of video and audio substance in the broadcast network news stories were not significantly different than the average amounts of visual and audio substance in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart stories about the presidential election," she wrote in the paper.

    Edit: Coverage of same study at Ars Technica.

    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Zimmydoom wrote: »
    Whether or not that narrative is an accurate reflection of reality is immaterial.

    I think it's pretty important.

    Well, in reality it is, but in terms of Olbermann's goals (ratings), it's not.

    If Olbermann's goals coincide with reality then it is important.

    I mean really, the question is very simple.

    Is it true?

    If it is true, then its good news

    if its not true, then its bad news.

    So then is what Olbermann saying true?

    wbBv3fj.png
  • JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Cervetus wrote: »
    Cervetus wrote: »
    I believe I heard of a study that analyzed content, but I'd have to look for it.

    There might be better articles about it, but this is the study I was talking about. http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/4159.html
    "It is clearly a humor show, first and foremost," Fox said of Stewart's program. "But there is some substance on there, and in some cases, like John Edwards announcing his candidacy, the news is made on the show. You have real newsmakers coming on, and yes, sometimes the banter and questions get a little silly, but there is also substantive dialogue going on … It's a legitimate source of news."
    "Interestingly, the average amounts of video and audio substance in the broadcast network news stories were not significantly different than the average amounts of visual and audio substance in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart stories about the presidential election," she wrote in the paper.
    Edit: Coverage of same study at Ars Technica.

    Sadly, the fact that they have similar factual volume and multimedia ratios points to something far more tragic then the daily show being a good news source.

  • tsmvengytsmvengy Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I'm just jumping in here to say that I think PBS/NPR is by far the least biased American news source. There is a clear reason for this - that is that they are not controlled by corporate interests. Leaving aside political slants, the networks and cable news channels are tied down by the fact that they are beholden to the ratings that they get. Fox News capitalized on this by directly playing to a certain ideology. MSNBC saw their success and has attempted to replicate it (though I think with less success - I think liberals are less attracted to someone parroting their ideology back at them, the same reason why liberal talk radio failed while conservative talk radio flourished).

    The other major networks and cable outlets also have to cover what the American populace wants to hear, so they are susceptible to getting on board with whatever is popular at the moment (see the gung-ho attitude about the Iraq War in late 2002/early 2003, bashing on Al Gore in 2000, or positive coverage of Obama recently). PBS/NPR are not tied down by having to play to whatever is popular with the American people, and studies have shown that their viewing/listening audience is a more educated one on average (perhaps the people who listen to them are then more likely to want diverse/informed news coverage.)

    That brings us back to how each of the networks are viewed in terms of conservative/liberal slant. Fox News has a clear conservative bias that runs from its talking heads shows (O'Reilly/Hannity) right into its news coverage. MSNBC has a clear liberal bias in its talking head shows (Olbermann/Maddow), its news coverage is IMO not liberally biased but they are the most sensationalistic/trashy of the major cable news outlets. The major networks (NBC, ABC, CBS) are just corporate/ratings slant, I don't think they have much in the way of noticeable political bias.

    PBS/NPR are perceived as liberal because they report much of what other news sources will not. I think much of this perception stems from the fact that they report on pain/suffering/shitty situations in war zones, 3rd World countries, etc. But if you look at the people who are guests on PBS/NPR programming you will see a wide variety of viewpoints.

    steam_sig.png
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Corporate media is biased against people who do/say humorously/outrageously messed up stuff on camera.

    Sarah Palin's ability to create such bias for herself is probably worthy of some sort of monument.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Corporate media is biased against people who do/say humorously/outrageously messed up stuff on camera.

    Sarah Palin's ability to create such bias for herself is probably worthy of some sort of monument.

    It'd be hard to make a statue of someone with both feet in their mouth while having their head up their ass at the same time

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Corporate media is biased against people who do/say humorously/outrageously messed up stuff on camera.

    Sarah Palin's ability to create such bias for herself is probably worthy of some sort of monument.

    It'd be hard to make a statue of someone with both feet in their mouth while having their head up their ass at the same time
    Which is why we should build it in space; the lack of gravity will make it easier to build, and it would be far away from here.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Corporate media is biased against people who do/say humorously/outrageously messed up stuff on camera.

    Sarah Palin's ability to create such bias for herself is probably worthy of some sort of monument.

    It'd be hard to make a statue of someone with both feet in their mouth while having their head up their ass at the same time
    If only M. C. Escher were still alive.

    "Despite all the bitching, if Diablo 3 sucks, I will eat my own cock. Counter-claim: If Diablo 3 does not suck, I will have a list of whiners who need to eat cocks." - Zen Vulgarity
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I honestly hope she runs again. I think we've barely tapped the keg of incompetence that is Sarah Palin.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Anyone else find the subtle irony that this video about "faceless bloggers" was in fact made by a blogger?

  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Anyone else find the subtle irony that this video about "faceless bloggers" was in fact made by a blogger?

    Hmm... I was under the impression that the conservative media had murdered irony a few years ago.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Sentry wrote: »
    Anyone else find the subtle irony that this video about "faceless bloggers" was in fact made by a blogger?

    Hmm... I was under the impression that the conservative media had murdered irony a few years ago.

    They're holding it in an undisclosed location.

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Sentry wrote: »
    I honestly hope she runs again. I think we've barely tapped the keg of incompetence that is Sarah Palin.
    Her first opponent for the governorship stepped up the other day. Smart money is on Alaskan politics getting a much bigger day in the sun this cycle than anyone really wants them to.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Terrendos wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Terrendos wrote: »
    One of my favorite things about coming here is listening to the sounds of stupid people in large numbers. The vicious nature in which you attack those who speak contrary to you... it's almost like a hungry shark attacking a bleeding seal.

    I would prefer if news stations would be open about where their bias is. NBC, CNN, and its affiliates should broadcast themselves as liberal, and Fox News should broadcast as conservative. I don't watch PBS, but since it's government-run it needs to be true neutral, which I really don't think it is.

    what exactly do you mean by "true neutral"?

    Obviously having something completely without bias is pretty much impossible. Perhaps (and this is off the top of my head) since the country is roughly a 50/50 split between conservative and liberal, Congress should appoint a group of 4 or so overseers, half from each party, so that they can agree on the strength of the viewpoints each is representing. It's still far from perfect, admittedly.

    That's actually another reason I believe in keeping the internet free. At least here there's no media conglomerate controlling the broadcasting.

    No.

    SEGATA SANSHIRO! LIVE AGAIN!
    Lanz.gif
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2009
    Regarding the media coverage of Palin's family versus Obama's, yeah, they were a wee bit different in tone. But that's probably because Obama's family made poorly-worded statements about national pride, while Palin's family is a retarded clown-car full of hillbilly hijinks. People didn't report on Palin's family because of ololl bias, they reported on her family because her underaged daughter got knocked up by a redneck high-school dropout while Palin and her husband looted clothing outlets across the country.

    I mean, shit, you can demand professionalism and composure from the media to a point, but when the somber reporter spies a naked mime being humped by a hot-pink grizzly bear in the background, can you really blame him for being distracted?

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • HonkHonk Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    I never understood what was sexist about the media's coverage about her. I mean, I know it wasn't, but I don't understand what conservatives claim was sexist.

    The families of presidential candidates and their VP's have always been big news. What makes it sexist?

    This isn't a hypothetical; I'm really hoping someone can enlighten me.

    There was nothing sexist going on in the general MSM coverage. My sincere guess is that intelligent GOP staffers realised what a complete basket case they had on their hands and thought that yelling "Sexists!" against all critics was a good way to try and moot all negative truths coming her way.

  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    They thought that they could win over Hillary supporters, mainly due to the amount of crazy those supports were showing at the time. What they neglected to realize is, the loudest group isn't necessarily the largest. The GOP got it wrong from every angle this past election.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • DuffelDuffel Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Sentry wrote: »
    I honestly hope she runs again. I think we've barely tapped the keg of incompetence that is Sarah Palin.
    Please, don't even say this. Yeah, it might be funny, but even a remote chance she might win would be too horrible to contemplate and is definitely not worth it.

    You'll probably get your wish, though. If Palin doesn't run in the Republican primaries four years from now I'll be surprised.

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    a naked mime being humped by a hot-pink grizzly bear
    I love how this has at least a handful of metaphorical parallels in this last election cycle.

    Well crafted, sir.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • HonkHonk Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    Duffel wrote: »
    Sentry wrote: »
    I honestly hope she runs again. I think we've barely tapped the keg of incompetence that is Sarah Palin.
    Please, don't even say this. Yeah, it might be funny, but even a remote chance she might win would be too horrible to contemplate and is definitely not worth it.

    You'll probably get your wish, though. If Palin doesn't run in the Republican primaries four years from now I'll be surprised.

    No doubt she'll run in 2012 I think. I'd literally rather eat my own cock than see her win.

Sign In or Register to comment.