125 out of 144 donating to Dem or liberal causes....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/

125 out of 144 donating to Dem or liberal causes....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/


But didn't you know?  All reporters are totally unbiased, and News Organizations are biased to Republicans.

Of course, there was the famous quote after the 1968 Nixon Landslide, where an New York Times reporter stated that she did not know anybody that voted for Nixon.

But didn't you know?  All reporters are totally unbiased, and News Organizations are biased to Republicans.

Of course, there was the famous quote after the 1968 Nixon Landslide, where an New York Times reporter stated that she did not know anybody that voted for Nixon.


Yes, I forgot,,,only Fox reports biased news...the rest of them are so neutral it's pathetic......

I have never believed that the other news agencies are innocent, however Fox isn't either.  LoL.  One big happy news network family, or something like that.

I have never believed that the other news agencies are innocent, however Fox isn't either.  LoL.  One big happy news network family, or something like that.


There are a few differences though.

Fox makes it very clear when they are doing news, and when they are doing commentary.  Shows like O'Riley are 85% commentary.  They do not try to hide the fact that it is commentary.  And for almost every segment where there is a dispute, they try to bring on people from both sides to debate the topic.  That is something you almost never see in mainstream "news".

As a good example, I saw a report on the President Bush veto on Stem Cell Research yesterday.  CNN Covered it, and showed 2 different clips of people saying how wrong it was.  The only person who defended it was obviously a whacko who brought in things like "stepping stone to abortion".

Fox on the other hand had at least 1 debate I saw, which had a "Patient's Rights" person who supported the bill, and a scientist who opposed it.  One argued that "It would be criminal not to rush this out to help the people who need it", while the other urged restraint until it is researched better.

I think that Bernie Goldberg is exactly right though.  In his book he discussed how the news is biased not because it is intentional, but it is unintentional.  Since most reporters identify themselves as "Liberal", they unconsciously slant the news to the way they think it should be reported.  After all, if you think that Blue is the best colour in the world, are you going to give serious time to people who think Red or Green are really the best?  No, you are going to present as much evidence as you can to support your claim.

Thats a good point.  Im not defending the other news agencies because im not a big fan of TV news anyway.  If I wanted drama, I would rent a DVD.    ;D  I sit in an office that has CNN on all day long and there is only so much of it I can take before I have to tune it out.  Commentary is probably where alot of my opinion on news stations come from.  Im not a big fan of these, whether they be liberal or conservative.

Fox on the other hand had at least 1 debate I saw, which had a "Patient's Rights" person who supported the bill, and a scientist who opposed it.  One argued that "It would be criminal not to rush this out to help the people who need it", while the other urged restraint until it is researched better.

Is that the norm on Fox news?  I dont watch it, but that is definitely what we need the news to be like. 

Is that the norm on Fox news?  I dont watch it, but that is definitely what we need the news to be like.   


It actually is.  About the only time that does not happen is if somebody refuses to appear.

This week I have been watching Fox for the coverage of the pregnant woman where the only witness is her 2 year old son.  On the first day, they said repeatedly that the father was not a suspect, and should not be treated as such unless something came in. 

And on The O'Riley Factor, he normally has Geraldo Rivera come in at the end to debate a topic of the day.  These are often quite heated, and I find myself agreeing with Geraldo (who is very liberal) as much as I do with Bill.

And ironically, one of Bill's all-time favourite guests is Rosie O'Donnel.  During the houpla over her on The View, he often defended her views (not that he agreed with them, but that she had a right to say them).  In fact, if you read the preamble to his interview of her in 2002, he states very clearly that he does not agree with the decision of Florida to prohibit gay parents from adopting:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48821,00.html

Hmmmm, not quite as "rabidly Right Wing" as many people seem to think.

Fox makes it very clear when they are doing news, and when they are doing commentary. 

I always hear FOX News make that claim.  I have yet to find a FOX News news program to compare to the commentary, so I can't say either way!

I can't blame journalists for donating heavily towards Dems.  Why would they give to Republicans?  If a guy punched you in the mouth and called you an a-hole at your kid's hockey game, would you invite him to your cocktail parties?
:D

I can't blame journalists for donating heavily towards Dems.  Why would they give to Republicans?  If a guy punched you in the mouth and called you an a-hole at your kid's hockey game, would you invite him to your cocktail parties?
:D


Of course, that is not considering the point of "would we go to your cocktail party in the first place?"

Personally, I would much rather stay at home with my family, or have a beer with a few friends.  I have been to liberal Cocktail parties.  Dull, dull, dull.  All they ever do is whine about everything, and talk about how they are always right.  Give me good old down-to-earth people, not stuck-up snobs who can do nothing but complain.

And when they are in charge, it is still complaining.  But then it is about how "the other guys" screwed up all of their wonderful plans.

Personally, I just say "fudge the world" and get another beer.

Of course, that is not considering the point of "would we go to your cocktail party in the first place?"

Personally, I would much rather stay at home with my family, or have a beer with a few friends.  I have been to liberal Cocktail parties.  Dull, dull, dull.  All they ever do is whine about everything, and talk about how they are always right.  Give me good old down-to-earth people, not stuck-up snobs who can do nothing but complain.

And when they are in charge, it is still complaining.  But then it is about how "the other guys" screwed up all of their wonderful plans.

Personally, I just say "fudge the world" and get another beer.

Aw, I was gonna invite you up to Hyannisport for a few Cape Codders with Teddy....you won't come along?
:(

But didn't you know?  All reporters are totally unbiased, and News Organizations are biased to Republicans.

Of course, there was the famous quote after the 1968 Nixon Landslide, where an New York Times reporter stated that she did not know anybody that voted for Nixon.


That was old Pauline Kael in 1972.  She was a movie critic for the New Yorker.  Funny thing is, Nixon won New York in 1972 (the only state Nixon lost that election was Massachusetts), so that woman must have really been living in a bubble, like so many other out-of-touch left-wing reporters.

Aw, I was gonna invite you up to Hyannisport for a few Cape Codders with Teddy....you won't come along?
:(


LMAO! ;D I honestly did laugh out loud for that one.

But seriously folks, let us not pretend that Republicans don't have million-dollar fundraising parties and that Democrats don't get together to have old-fashioned BBQs. It's not a question of which ideology is elitist and which isn't. Both parties have their elite and also their base of regular Joes and Janes.

That was old Pauline Kael in 1972.  She was a movie critic for the New Yorker.  Funny thing is, Nixon won New York in 1972 (the only state Nixon lost that election was Massachusetts), so that woman must have really been living in a bubble, like so many other out-of-touch left-wing reporters.


It really is a classic case of "Big City Elites" Vs. "Small Town Rural Folks".

Most of the "Movers and shakers" in a region live in the big cities.  And they tend more towards "causes", and are almost univerally more liberal.  These are the managers, the people that want handouts, and those who's humanity has largely been sucked out of them by being forced to live "arsehole to belly button" with all of their neighbors.  A lot join liberal causes because it makes them feel good.

When you move out of the cities however, you see a marked change.  Family and church becomes more important, and people are much more likely to do manual labor for a living.  These are people who work hard to get what they want, and don't understand why other peopleare not willing to work equally hard to get what they want.  Because of this, they are often fiercely independent, and don't like other's telling them what to do or what to believe.

Elections is often where these two clash.  This is the stereotypical "Red State Vs. Blue State" at it's core.  Sure the Liberal bastions of Miami and Jacksonville may have voted overwhelmingly Democrat.  But that is not the entire state, and the vast majority of people actually live in more rural areas like Marianna, Chipley, and Homestead.  And it is only natural that the reporters most often associate themselves with Liberal causes, since they live in towns like New York and Los Angeles.

I am almost a classic case of a  "California Republican".  In reality, most of my views are of a Moderate-Libertarian point of view.  You take a Republican from California and New York, and drop them in Alabama or Idaho, and they look like a wild-eyed Democrat to the locals.  And inversely, if you take a Democrat from Idaho or Alabama and drop them in New York, they look like a Republican.

To me, the "Red Vs. Blue" is really a battle between the two extreme fringes of the parties.  And most people have problems with both sides of the arguements.  But the news organizations are almost universally out of touch with "Mainstream Americans", because they all live in the Crystal Palace cities of NY, LA, SF, and DC.  They really have no idea what life is like for people in Boise Idaho, Jacksonville NC, or Winslow Arizona.  After all, what do events or opinions in Boise really matter?

So they go to their cocktail parties with other "Media Elites", and pat each other on the back.  And of course they only invite those that they actually agree with, because who wants to have a party with somebody that does not think like them?  It would be like having a fund raising dinner for the local NAACP, and having as a guest the local Kleagle.

I actually blame a lot of this on something that started in the 1960's.  Back then, a lot of people got into journalism because they wanted to "make a difference" and "change the world".  Wrong reason.  The news is not supposed to influence people or chang eopinions.  It is supposed to report the news, period.  All those "crusaders" are now senior editors and publishers.  And knowingly or unknowingly, they slant the news to fit in with their little viewpoint of the world.

After all, they know that somebody who has $2 million in assets is "rich".  But they do not understand that the farmer who works his land may have $2 million in "assets", but only makes $50k a year from his crops.  But he is still taxed to death, and treated as if he was rich.  That is why so many farmers in the last 20 years have either sold out to corporations, or gone out of business alltogether and sold their land to be converted into yet another postage stamp subdivision.

I have lived in big towns and small.  San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Connecticut.  I have also lived in medium sized cities like Anchorage and Boise, and small towns like Jacksonville NC and Enterprise Alabama.  Personally, the big cities with their pretentious attitudes and paranoia can have it.

There are a few differences though.

Fox makes it very clear when they are doing news, and when they are doing commentary.  Shows like O'Riley are 85% commentary.  They do not try to hide the fact that it is commentary.  And for almost every segment where there is a dispute, they try to bring on people from both sides to debate the topic.  That is something you almost never see in mainstream "news".

As a good example, I saw a report on the President Bush veto on Stem Cell Research yesterday.  CNN Covered it, and showed 2 different clips of people saying how wrong it was.  The only person who defended it was obviously a whacko who brought in things like "stepping stone to abortion".

Fox on the other hand had at least 1 debate I saw, which had a "Patient's Rights" person who supported the bill, and a scientist who opposed it.  One argued that "It would be criminal not to rush this out to help the people who need it", while the other urged restraint until it is researched better.

I think that Bernie Goldberg is exactly right though.  In his book he discussed how the news is biased not because it is intentional, but it is unintentional.  Since most reporters identify themselves as "Liberal", they unconsciously slant the news to the way they think it should be reported.  After all, if you think that Blue is the best colour in the world, are you going to give serious time to people who think Red or Green are really the best?  No, you are going to present as much evidence as you can to support your claim.



What really bothers me about Fox is that they call themselves "Fair & Balanced" when they are obviously not. And how O'Reilly calls his show the "No Spin Zone" when one can get very dizzy watching it. Yes, O'Reilly has the so-called "opposition" on his show but he usually cuts them off before they have a chance to say their piece. And what really gets me is how he is obsess with the "competition". I don't watch any of the networks but I can always find out about them by watching Bill. And Rosie. He is REALLY obsess with her. Do any of us really care about she says? Sure she is entitled to her opinion just like Bill is but it is NOT news. One time, we turned on Bill-this was when Congress voted on the Iraq spending bill and he had "TOP STORY: ROSIE QUITS THE VIEW!!!!" I'm sorry, but IMO, the fact that Congress agreeing to support the war was more important than Rosie quitting her job. Personally, I think he should probably quit doing a so-called political show and do an entertainment gossip show-that is usually what half his show is about anyway-this celebrity did this or said that. 

I have noticed on CNN having panels to discuss some of the issues and they do have people from all ends of the political spectrum. I don't think I have ever heard any of these panels agreeing with each other.


Cat

If you want dredge up a New York sociolite quote from the last generation to illustrate your point, go ahead.

Just because poor slobs like me don't get to hang out with Paul Newman and Katrina Vanden huevel it does not follow that voting Republican is in my economic interest.
:D

There sure is liberal elitism...

But what about the faux-populist cornpone elitism on the Right?  Twangy accents, country music, pick-up tricks, gun racks, Sunday school, Andy Griffith, grits'n'gravy, Reader's Digest, Norman Rockwell....and a zillion dollars riding up Wall Street!
:P