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

2456789

Posts

  • monikermoniker 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.

    As opposed to getting your news from D&D like most of us do, which is totally non-biased. Though occasionally really pissed with our guy, so I guess there's some diversity of opinion.

    ...who uses forum commentary as their primary source of news? And can I hit them?

    I mean, you guys tend to be great as a meta-crawler for my internets based news, but that's because you link to things/quote actual reporters. Otherwise its the Trib and News Hour. Besides, TDS isn't much fun unless you already know the details of the story he's ripping on.

    tea-1.jpg
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    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.

    Well, yes, but the OP is ostensibly lamenting a liberal bias, which sets off my stupid people alarms.

    Spoiler:
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    moniker 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.

    As opposed to getting your news from D&D like most of us do, which is totally non-biased. Though occasionally really pissed with our guy, so I guess there's some diversity of opinion.

    ...who uses forum commentary as their primary source of news? And can I hit them?

    I mean, you guys tend to be great as a meta-crawler for my internets based news, but that's because you link to things/quote actual reporters. Otherwise its the Trib and News Hour. Besides, TDS isn't much fun unless you already know the details of the story he's ripping on.

    Do you not remember half the denizens of the Obamarama threads saying we were where they get their news?

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered 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.

    Well, yes, but the OP is ostensibly lamenting a liberal bias, which sets off my stupid people alarms.

    Yeah, the whole liberal bias thing is silly. They let a conservative President get away with war crimes and didn't give a shit. Hell, the Pentagon manipulated the hell out of the media to sway public opinion on Iraq. To the best of my knowledge none of the networks or cable outlets have commented on that story to this day except to stand by their Pentagon supplied military analysts.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    ...who uses forum commentary as their primary source of news? And can I hit them?

    I mean, you guys tend to be great as a meta-crawler for my internets based news, but that's because you link to things/quote actual reporters. Otherwise its the Trib and News Hour. Besides, TDS isn't much fun unless you already know the details of the story he's ripping on.

    Do you not remember half the denizens of the Obamarama threads saying we were where they get their news?

    I thought they were referring to us as a stepping stone to the actual news. For instance, I learned about the 'Frisco shooting here before anywhere else, because I don't read the paper or watch the news until after dinner. That doesn't mean the [chat] thread is my news source, the Chronicle story was my news source. The thread was my window into horriffic fuck uppitry.

    tea-1.jpg
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    ...who uses forum commentary as their primary source of news? And can I hit them?

    I mean, you guys tend to be great as a meta-crawler for my internets based news, but that's because you link to things/quote actual reporters. Otherwise its the Trib and News Hour. Besides, TDS isn't much fun unless you already know the details of the story he's ripping on.

    Do you not remember half the denizens of the Obamarama threads saying we were where they get their news?

    I thought they were referring to us as a stepping stone to the actual news. For instance, I learned about the 'Frisco shooting here before anywhere else, because I don't read the paper or watch the news until after dinner. That doesn't mean the [chat] thread is my news source, the Chronicle story was my news source. The thread was my window into horriffic fuck uppitry.

    Well, then we're talking using two different definitions. I meant what you meant really.

  • ZoolanderZoolander Registered User
    edited January 2009
    Oh god, that CBC interview was so fucking painful. I about killed myself when she started talking about doors again.

  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I get all my news from fortune cookies.

  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I don't have a problem with her politics, I just hate her as a person.

    Well, I do have a problem with her politics. But that's a mole on an ass when it comes to her.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    MKR wrote: »
    I get all my news from fortune cookies.

    So everything newsworthy gets resolved between the sheets?

    tea-1.jpg
  • TerrendosTerrendos Decorative Monocle Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    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.

    Sig1.png
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    If you can't spot an organization's leaning, you probably shouldn't be consuming news at all.

  • CheezyCheezy Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    One of my favorite things about coming here is watching people who are outside the realms of reality get reamed, no matter the political stripe.

  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    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"?

    SEGATA SANSHIRO! LIVE AGAIN!
    Lanz.gif
  • TerrendosTerrendos Decorative Monocle Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    But the point remains that people do. They do watch the news without knowing where it's coming from. People require an equal opportunity to know what they're seeing, since apparently we can't trust reporters and broadcasting companies to show both sides of an argument fairly.

    Sig1.png
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Terrendos wrote: »
    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 reality allows.

    Fix'd.

    If you think there's such a thing as neutral reporting...well I just don't know what to say.

    tea-1.jpg
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Cheezy wrote: »
    One of my favorite things about coming here is watching people who are outside the realms of reality get reamed, no matter the political stripe.

    I get really tired of listening to idiots spouting ignorance and then hiding behind the "it's just my opinion!" excuse.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • ZoolanderZoolander Registered User
    edited January 2009
    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.

    Hehehehehe

  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I strongly dislike people who paint all criticism as an attack.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Terrendos wrote: »
    But the point remains that people do. They do watch the news without knowing where it's coming from.

    o_O
    People require an equal opportunity to know what they're seeing, since apparently we can't trust reporters and broadcasting companies to show both sides of an argument fairly.

    ...when did all arguments suddenly lose all complexity and become dichotomous?

    tea-1.jpg
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Terrendos wrote: »
    But the point remains that people do. They do watch the news without knowing where it's coming from. People require an equal opportunity to know what they're seeing, since apparently we can't trust reporters and broadcasting companies to show both sides of an argument fairly.

    Are both sides of an argument valid?

    SEGATA SANSHIRO! LIVE AGAIN!
    Lanz.gif
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Lanz wrote: »
    Terrendos wrote: »
    But the point remains that people do. They do watch the news without knowing where it's coming from. People require an equal opportunity to know what they're seeing, since apparently we can't trust reporters and broadcasting companies to show both sides of an argument fairly.

    Are both sides of an argument valid?

    Exceedingly rarely.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • TerrendosTerrendos Decorative Monocle Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    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.

    Sig1.png
  • MKRMKR 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.

    Cite please.

  • TerrendosTerrendos Decorative Monocle Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Terrendos wrote: »
    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 reality allows.

    Fix'd.

    If you think there's such a thing as neutral reporting...well I just don't know what to say.

    See my post above this one.

    Sig1.png
  • monikermoniker 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.

    o_O

    tea-1.jpg
  • oldmankenoldmanken 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.

    You want government to police the media? o_O

  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    He wants government overseers to keep the media fair.

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

  • TerrendosTerrendos Decorative Monocle Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    MKR wrote: »
    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.

    Cite please.

    Well, according to this display showing the percentages of the popular vote each candidate garnered, Obama had about a 7% lead. There might be a case for you to argue that Democrats should therefore have slightly more of a say because of that small percentage, however since the Republicans won the previous two elections I'd be inclined to say it's probably a bit closer than that.

    Sig1.png
  • JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense 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.

    Or here's an idea

    1)We raise people who aren't fucking stupid

    2)they consume the news with the best information instead of the most soothingly patronizing content. They actively resent attempts to herd, manipulate and lie to them because they are beautiful and we made them well.

    3)the market corrects.

    Both of our scenarios are unlikely, but mine is just unlikely, yours is . . . the kind of well meaning facism that leads to Orwellian government, Diana Moon-Glampers and her shotgun, etc.

    "Maybe we're here to eat the sandwich." -- Joe Rogan
  • ZoolanderZoolander Registered User
    edited January 2009
    Terrendos wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    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.

    Cite please.

    Well, according to this display showing the percentages of the popular vote each candidate garnered, Obama had about a 7% lead. There might be a case for you to argue that Democrats should therefore have slightly more of a say because of that small percentage, however since the Republicans won the previous two elections I'd be inclined to say it's probably a bit closer than that.
    Wow
    No words

  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Terrendos wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    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.

    Cite please.

    Well, according to this display showing the percentages of the popular vote each candidate garnered, Obama had about a 7% lead. There might be a case for you to argue that Democrats should therefore have slightly more of a say because of that small percentage, however since the Republicans won the previous two elections I'd be inclined to say it's probably a bit closer than that.

    Where is the "liberal" and "conservative" breakdown?

  • TerrendosTerrendos Decorative Monocle Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    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.

    Sig1.png
  • JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Terrendos wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    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.

    Cite please.

    Well, according to this display showing the percentages of the popular vote each candidate garnered, Obama had about a 7% lead. There might be a case for you to argue that Democrats should therefore have slightly more of a say because of that small percentage, however since the Republicans won the previous two elections I'd be inclined to say it's probably a bit closer than that.


    How is at all sequitous that the majority leaning in the country has anything to do with neutral reporting? Reporting should verify your world view if the reporting is accurate and your view correct. If there's dissonance between the truth and your viewpoint, it should not be compromised by jogging the reporting any percentage, it should be compromised by you taking a look in the mirror.

    "Maybe we're here to eat the sandwich." -- Joe Rogan
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Terrendos wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    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.

    Cite please.

    Well, according to this display showing the percentages of the popular vote each candidate garnered, Obama had about a 7% lead. There might be a case for you to argue that Democrats should therefore have slightly more of a say because of that small percentage, however since the Republicans won the previous two elections I'd be inclined to say it's probably a bit closer than that.

    If we're using that as a reference to the feelings of the nation, shouldn't the Democrats only have 3.5 seats, the Republicans 2.5 seats, and 4 seats are left vacant?

    tea-1.jpg
  • ZoolanderZoolander Registered User
    edited January 2009
    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.

  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Someone please tell me Terrendos is some sort of alt.

  • TerrendosTerrendos Decorative Monocle Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    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.

    Sig1.png
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    This stopped clock broke the trend.

Sign In or Register to comment.