Left or Right: Media Leanings...

[redsox39]

It is my firm belief that the media, in general, leans left. Gone are the days of reporting, and just about every news outlet is editorialized.

So I leave up the poll, and I ask you:
Is Fox Really "Fair and Balanced"? Or is Fox the only outlet with a lean?
Is MCNBC really a liberal bastian of lies?

If you take away AM talk radio (and Fox news) does the right have anyone spreading its views? and how many people listen to AM radio?

These questions have nothing to do with the Poll, so I'll let the voting begin...

[Tar Heel]

The general media may lean slightly left, but what fox news does can hardly be considered leaning. They are so far right that there is no question of what party they support. It might as well be called the Republican access channel.

[nuclearjew]

"Fox News is the only Fair and Balanced outlet, the rest lean left"

hahahah

[Mr. Brown]

I feel that the media follows the trend of the nation (well those who follow/watch the news) I believe in 80s it was probably more to the right during the "Greed is Good" days. The 90s was the era of the dot coms so they were a little more liberal and now it's still left imho, but sways back and forth.

[Oggie]

Reaganomincs!

[TheImpossibleMan]

They are in line with whatever party is in power. Pandering to the majority creates more access and more money.

Except for Fox News, they're right wing.

[Mr. Brown]

Something-d-o-o economics. "Voodoo" economics

[Oggie]

Let my Cameron go.

[freegood]

Most reporters/journalists heavily lean left, but editors and their bosses look heavily on the bottom line. Articles that undercut sponsors aren't reported unless it's big or it has already happened and can't be ignored. Corporations are looking for profit...plain and simple. If a simple graphic or gimmick on Fox can be ported to CNN and it boosts 2 points in the ratings, originality or professionalism be damned.

Sniffing bias has been an old game, but the attention on it has gone beyond looking at the sourcing or the credibility behind the reporting. Screams of bias are now part of the publication's brand.

[vasili denisov]

I think more reporters should be objective in their work. And look like Gabrielle Union. And pose in schoolgirl outfits. And give me blow jobs. All too often, so-called "fairness in media" organizations are reluctant to complain of this.

[Mr. Brown]

I think more reporters should be objective in their work. And look like Gabrielle Union. And pose in schoolgirl outfits. And give me blow jobs. All too often, so-called "fairness in media" organizations are reluctant to complain of this.

Lets's go by out CNN and put your idea in to action.

[}{arlequin]

which way does the bbc lean?

[vasili denisov]

Lets's go by out CNN and put your idea in to action.
I would, but Wolf Blitzer and I share...a past. There are many elements, it's all complicated, it involves a tar pit, a dead body, the sax player on "The Heat is On", a few dead bodies, a recurring role on Suddenly Susan, I think I mentioned the dead bodies, the Cape Hope Diamond, bodies - of the dead kind, thick ugly sweaters, and bodies, non-nude, non-sexy, non-Wolf Blitzer, non-living bodies.
which way does the bbc lean?
Left, I think. But over there, they drive on the other side of the road. So, it's difficult to tell.

[heelsguy]

anyone who thinks the media in general does not lean left is taking crazy pills. Fox news leans to the right so much it reads the news from a futon, but still my first statement is correct.

[Desperado]

anyone who thinks the media in general does not lean left is taking crazy pills.

So if you and that jackass redsox are the only ones that think that, does that mean you guys are the crazy fucks?

[Mr. Brown]

I would, but Wolf Blitzer and I share...a past. There are many elements, it's all complicated, it involves a tar pit, a dead body, the sax player on "The Heat is On", a few dead bodies, a recurring role on Suddenly Susan, I think I mentioned the dead bodies, the Cape Hope Diamond, bodies - of the dead kind, thick ugly sweaters, and bodies, non-nude, non-sexy, non-Wolf Blitzer, non-living bodies.

Left, I think. But over there, they drive on the other side of the road. So, it's difficult to tell.
This wolf can take care of that:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.01/images/PL_66_screen8_t.gif

[zeronine]

anyone who thinks the media in general does not lean left is taking crazy pills. Fox news leans to the right so much it reads the news from a futon, but still my first statement is correct.

Lol sorry, but I must disagree.

Consider the fact that Ron Fournier, the acting Washington bureau chief for the Associated Press, has been slammed lately for his pro right-wing slant. Hell he was approached by McCain in 2006 about a job as a communications advisor.

This is the Associated Press....only the major news outlet for most of the newspapers in this country.

I must be taking those crazy pills.

[iolas]

Fox and MSNBC are the extremes. The rest lean just slightly left.

[Stax]

Didn't we already have this discussion/thread? Fox is crazy right, MSNBC is slightly-less-so-but-still-pretty-bad left, and the rest are basically meh.

[redsox39]

Lol sorry, but I must disagree.

Consider the fact that Ron Fournier, the acting Washington bureau chief for the Associated Press, has been slammed lately for his pro right-wing slant. Hell he was approached by McCain in 2006 about a job as a communications advisor.

This is the Associated Press....only the major news outlet for most of the newspapers in this country.

I must be taking those crazy pills.

How many people does the AP employ? You found one of them, a higher ranking one, but one. And so he happens to not write the same thing as most people so he is slammed for a right wing slant. Maybe he tells it like it is so he can continue to get acess to the whitehouse?

I think the biggest problem with Fox news is that you people are SO used to hearing exactly what you want, as if they are reading an Obama Press release, when you here it straight, you think it is a right wing attack.

[Stax]

How many people does the AP employ? You found one of them, a higher ranking one, but one. And so he happens to not write the same thing as most people so he is slammed for a right wing slant. Maybe he tells it like it is so he can continue to get acess to the whitehouse?

I think the biggest problem with Fox news is that you people are SO used to hearing exactly what you want, as if they are reading an Obama Press release, when you here it straight, you think it is a right wing attack.

..Are you serious? You honestly don't see the right-wing bias of having just about 90% of your primetime presentations (to say nothing of the headlines and such that get presented in their actual 'news' shows and who hosts them) being conservative opinion talk shows that have literally (as was recently revealed) been given White House talking points?

[redsox39]

..Are you serious? You honestly don't see the right-wing bias of having just about 90% of your primetime presentations (to say nothing of the headlines and such that get presented in their actual 'news' shows and who hosts them) being conservative opinion talk shows that have literally (as was recently revealed) been given White House talking points?


What do you listen only to 100% AM radio? I still read the NY Times, Washington Post, and La Times. I Read Time, Newsweek, and Playboy. (ok, I look at Playboy). I watch CNN, FOX and ABC news.

Here, example. The John Edwards Scandel. Here he is cheating on his dying wife with a coke whore who is having his love baby and using campaign fund to cover it up. Oh, and he was "probably" going to be named Obama's VP. All the Blogs were talking about, but no one in the real media wants to touch it. Finally, 3 weeks after people in Somolia knew about it, they begrudingly report the story...
But now, The daily kos has some bloggers who think a 5 month pregnant 17 year old is really the mother of a down syndrome baby who's age makes this physically impossible, and REAL reporters ask these questions to Sara Palin.

Just off the top and current, this is blatant protection of the left by the Left wing media, and...attacking a woman as quick and brutally as possible since she is from the right. I mean, 5 days ago we have never heard of her, and now she is pulling a retarded version of the plot of Desparate housewives? Come on....

[Smokestack]

What do you listen only to 100% AM radio? I still read the NY Times, Washington Post, and La Times. I Read Time, Newsweek, and Playboy. (ok, I look at Playboy). I watch CNN, FOX and ABC news.

Here, example. The John Edwards Scandel. Here he is cheating on his dying wife with a coke whore who is having his love baby and using campaign fund to cover it up. Oh, and he was "probably" going to be named Obama's VP. All the Blogs were talking about, but no one in the real media wants to touch it. Finally, 3 weeks after people in Somolia knew about it, they begrudingly report the story...
But now, The daily kos has some bloggers who think a 5 month pregnant 17 year old is really the mother of a down syndrome baby who's age makes this physically impossible, and REAL reporters ask these questions to Sara Palin.

Just off the top and current, this is blatant protection of the left by the Left wing media, and...attacking a woman as quick and brutally as possible since she is from the right. I mean, 5 days ago we have never heard of her, and now she is pulling a retarded version of the plot of Desparate housewives? Come on....

The difference here is that Sarah Palin was a blank slate...the McCain campaign introduced her that way by keeping what little vetting they did on her private. You nominate someone for VP who is a virtual unknown and the press is going to pounce. Comparing her to Edwards is like comparing apples to oranges. A more apt comparison with Palin would be to Obama with the madrassa and Trinity Church stories, although even he was more well-known that she was.

[redsox39]

The difference here is that Sarah Palin was a blank slate...the McCain campaign introduced her that way by keeping what little vetting they did on her private. You nominate someone for VP who is a virtual unknown and the press is going to pounce. Comparing her to Edwards is like comparing apples to oranges. A more apt comparison with Palin would be to Obama with the madrassa and Trinity Church stories, although even he was more well-known that she was.

Ok, you are right. John Edwards, Fresh off his second run at the big seat looks to at least get in to the VP Spot. HE IS CHEATING ON HIS WIFE WITH A COKE WHORE WHO HAD HIS LOVE CHILD AND HE PAID FOR THE COVER UP WITH MONEY HE GOT FROM HIS CAMPAIGN SUPPORTERS! And all this after he rode the sympathy bus from his wife's cancer pretty far, parading her around on all his stops.

If you tell me that if this would have happened to Any Living Republican figure who has ever thrown his hat in the ring and is still alive, they would have ignored this too? What if this was Mitt Romney? They would have looked the other way too? Get real and take off your Blinders, Sheep Boy.

[redsox39]

I think it was intentional that they let her go out as a blank slate. Notice how (minus her quotes on sex ed) we have heard nothing about her as Gov?

You guys are all the same...she has done nothing wrong to you, she hasn't even taken a public stance on ANYTHING really since her nomination, but the hate came flying faster than a 17 year old boy cumming in a VP's daughter.

Give people enough rope, and they will hang themselves.
Only scared Dem's would think, "well, let's attack her retarded baby and say it isn't hers" and think this was a good plan.

Way to stick with the issues. And I am pretty sure Old Man McCain saw this stupidity from miles away.

[Smokestack]

Ok, you are right. John Edwards, Fresh off his second run at the big seat looks to at least get in to the VP Spot. HE IS CHEATING ON HIS WIFE WITH A COKE WHORE WHO HAD HIS LOVE CHILD AND HE PAID FOR THE COVER UP WITH MONEY HE GOT FROM HIS CAMPAIGN SUPPORTERS! And all this after he rode the sympathy bus from his wife's cancer pretty far, parading her around on all his stops.

If you tell me that if this would have happened to Any Living Republican figure who has ever thrown his hat in the ring and is still alive, they would have ignored this too? What if this was Mitt Romney? They would have looked the other way too? Get real and take off your Blinders, Sheep Boy.

The Larry Craig thing didn't break until months later. Think Edwards' shit is more sensational than that?

[freegood]

Ted Stevens has been stealing from taxpayers for decades. That's bigger than fooling around in the privacy of your own home.

[redsox39]

The Larry Craig thing didn't break until months later. Think Edwards' shit is more sensational than that?

Do I think it is more sensational than a then Unknown Senator from Idaho bumping the foot of someone in a bathroom stall in Minneasota, maybe for Gay sex? sure do.

Plus the fact he was running for President 6 months ago, Plus the fact that he was about to be the Vice President, Plus the fact he was a keynote speaker who had to drop out of the convention, plus the fact that he commited fraud, lied, and knocked up a coke whore while shoving his wife in the spot light screaming "LOOK SHE HAS CANCER AND IS DYING". It is hard to sympathize with the guy.

Wow. 1 headline Larry Craig. Nice comparison.

And he was crucified, so I am not even understanding your point...

[redsox39]

Ted Stevens has been stealing from taxpayers for decades. That's bigger than fooling around in the privacy of your own home.

Then you will love Palin who has asked Stevens to resign multiple times.

[Smokestack]

Do I think it is more sensational than a then Unknown Senator from Idaho bumping the foot of someone in a bathroom stall in Minneasota, maybe for Gay sex? sure do.

Plus the fact he was running for President 6 months ago, Plus the fact that he was about to be the Vice President, Plus the fact he was a keynote speaker who had to drop out of the convention, plus the fact that he commited fraud, lied, and knocked up a coke whore while shoving his wife in the spot light screaming "LOOK SHE HAS CANCER AND IS DYING". It is hard to sympathize with the guy.

Wow. 1 headline Larry Craig. Nice comparison.

And he was crucified, so I am not even understanding your point...

Mark Foley is another. And if Larry Craig was crucified, why is he still serving the fine state of Idaho. Edwards wasn't even a Senator when his broke and, if you watch the talk shows, he's getting his now.

[Smokestack]

Then you will love Palin who has asked Stevens to resign multiple times.

After chairing his 527, you mouthbreather.

[Genius]

Do Republicans detest being members of the media? Because that is essentially the only way this is possible. As far as I know, applicants aren't being questioned about their political beliefs during the interview process. So that means that if a bias exists, it's because there are far more left-leaning journalists than right.

The right has been bitching about this for years now, and yet, all I hear is bitching. I certainly don't see an influx of young right-leaning reporters, with fresh communications degrees, entering the job market, eager to end the left-dominated media empire.

So shut the fuck up about the bias. If you've stooped so low as to get your news from Fox, then what the fuck do you care about what's being reported elsewhere anyway? Obviously objectivity isn't your main concern.

[Void]

Most reporters/journalists heavily lean left, but editors and their bosses look heavily on the bottom line. Articles that undercut sponsors aren't reported unless it's big or it has already happened and can't be ignored. Corporations are looking for profit...plain and simple. If a simple graphic or gimmick on Fox can be ported to CNN and it boosts 2 points in the ratings, originality or professionalism be damned.

Sniffing bias has been an old game, but the attention on it has gone beyond looking at the sourcing or the credibility behind the reporting. Screams of bias are now part of the publication's brand.Exactly.

And the mainstream media continues to be consolidated by fewer and fewer corporate owners. They might let a few openly-left commentators on the air if they can bring in a few bucks. But when it comes to hard news, you'll be hard-pressed to find any coverage that can threaten their wealth and power. They'd much rather offer the public stories about the latest kidnapped white girl, or who your favorite celebrity is fucking these days.

[Stax]

What do you listen only to 100% AM radio? I still read the NY Times, Washington Post, and La Times. I Read Time, Newsweek, and Playboy. (ok, I look at Playboy). I watch CNN, FOX and ABC news.

Here, example. The John Edwards Scandel. Here he is cheating on his dying wife with a coke whore who is having his love baby and using campaign fund to cover it up. Oh, and he was "probably" going to be named Obama's VP. All the Blogs were talking about, but no one in the real media wants to touch it. Finally, 3 weeks after people in Somolia knew about it, they begrudingly report the story...
But now, The daily kos has some bloggers who think a 5 month pregnant 17 year old is really the mother of a down syndrome baby who's age makes this physically impossible, and REAL reporters ask these questions to Sara Palin.

Just off the top and current, this is blatant protection of the left by the Left wing media, and...attacking a woman as quick and brutally as possible since she is from the right. I mean, 5 days ago we have never heard of her, and now she is pulling a retarded version of the plot of Desparate housewives? Come on....

John Edwards was a figure in the Democratic Party, but with no real connection to the only story anyone was covering, the election, anymore.

Sarah Palin was a freshly announced vice presidential candidate, ANY fresh face gets screened like that.

Not to mention that it surprises you that it took a while for networks to run with a tabloid story? Remember Dan Rather's resignation over moving too fast with an unconfirmed story? FOX News and the Obama-is-a-secret-muslim story? Networks take time to report on stories that might be broken early in other sources because they generally try to confirm things.

[Insomniac]

Look what happened to CNN Headline News. It went from being the best cable news channel for learning what was going on around the country and the world to being an E! rip-off. Not because of any ideology, but because they knew more people cared about Angelina Jolie than the places her children come from.

[Genius]

That can't be the only reason. I guarantee more people gave a shit about Liz Taylor in the early 60s than they did about news from Egypt.

[Void]

Look what happened to CNN Headline News. It went from being the best cable news channel for learning what was going on around the country and the world to being an E! rip-off. Not because of any ideology, but because they knew more people cared about Angelina Jolie than the places her children come from.May Glenn Beck choke on Nancy Grace's cock.

[Rover]

The people who don't believe the media slants Left are kidding themselves, or are so used to hearing things they agree with that it doesn't phase them. You can't claim FoxNews is biased and then claim MSNBC is pure. Bias works both ways.

As far as coverage of hard news, I think Fox is the fairest, followed quite closely by CNN. Editorially, CNN slants Left and Fox slants Right and MSNBC slants crazy. Both conventions, the outdoor TV sets for MSNBC was surrounded by 9/11 truthers, who were holding placards proclaiming everything from Bush is a Nazi to 9/11 was an inside job. I guess to balance themselves out, they included a few Ron Paul supporters; although they were holding truther signs, too. Surely, you must admit that that is some strong bias to show on TV. You don't even need to say anything, just show "9/11 was an inside job" for 4 hours.

My favorite CNN moment from the RNC was after Bush 43 spoke about the "angry Left." Wolf, Anderson Cooper, David Gergen, and Carl Berstein had difficulty understanding what that term meant. I believe Cooper's exact comment was, "I don't understand what he meant." Classic left-leaning media.

At least Fox will have commentators that present different viewpoints. After Obama's speech, I listened to Olbermann and Maddow and Matthews fellate each other. Yeah, that's some non-biased analysis.

[Lone Wolf]

None of the above

[Genius]

The people who don't believe the media slants Left are kidding themselves, or are so used to hearing things they agree with that it doesn't phase them. You can't claim FoxNews is biased and then claim MSNBC is pure. Bias works both ways.
Even if there is a bias, Republicans act like that's somehow MY fault. What the fuck does the average liberal have to do with it? I don't believe there is a conspiracy, so if anything, like I said before, it's more the average young Republican's fault for not going into journalism.

[Stax]

The people who don't believe the media slants Left are kidding themselves, or are so used to hearing things they agree with that it doesn't phase them. You can't claim FoxNews is biased and then claim MSNBC is pure. Bias works both ways.

No actually I don't, but hey say whatever you want.


At least Fox will have commentators that present different viewpoints. After Obama's speech, I listened to Olbermann and Maddow and Matthews fellate each other. Yeah, that's some non-biased analysis.

Again, basically everyone accepts that MSNBC is biased. I find it funny that you realize this, but think that Fox news and its Olbermann/Maddow/Mattews equivalents of O'Reilly/Van Sustren/Hannity/Cavuto/Hume/Limbaugh (I saw like a ten minute segment today with him, guess what guys!? He thinks Obama is bad and that Palin's speech was awesome! Thanks Rush!)/Coulter/etc is the 'fairest' of the MSM.

[Void]

Again, basically everyone accepts that MSNBC is biased. To the left?

Tell that to Phil Donahue, who had the highest rated show on MSNBC at the time, and was kicked off the air when he dared to question the validity of the imminent US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

[Rover]

Even if there is a bias, Republicans act like that's somehow MY fault. What the fuck does the average liberal have to do with it? I don't believe there is a conspiracy, so if anything, like I said before, it's more the average young Republican's fault for not going into journalism.The average liberal has nothing to do with it. If managment/editors consist solely of 1970's anti-war protestors, how do you expect a young conservative to get a job? Or keep a job?
Again, basically everyone accepts that MSNBC is biased. I find it funny that you realize this, but think that Fox news and its Olbermann/Maddow/Mattews equivalents of O'Reilly/Van Sustren/Hannity/Cavuto/Hume/Limbaugh (I saw like a ten minute segment today with him, guess what guys!? He thinks Obama is bad and that Palin's speech was awesome! Thanks Rush!)/Coulter/etc is the 'fairest' of the MSM.I said that FoxNews' "hard" news coverage is the fairest. There is a difference. Hard news relies on facts. Editorialized news combines news with opinion. Editorially, Fox slants pretty Right, but with "hard" news they use a lot of factually based news, and do a good job of presenting context and both sides.

[Stax]

I said that FoxNews' "hard" news coverage is the fairest. There is a difference. Hard news relies on facts. Editorialized news combines news with opinion. Editorially, Fox slants pretty Right, but with "hard" news they use a lot of factually based news, and do a good job of presenting context and both sides.

If you are discussing 'hard' news coverage then why were the three names you named as evidence of MSNBC's bias all opinion/talk news names?

[Soup Nazi]

Both conventions, the outdoor TV sets for MSNBC was surrounded by 9/11 truthers, who were holding placards proclaiming everything from Bush is a Nazi to 9/11 was an inside job. I guess to balance themselves out, they included a few Ron Paul supporters; although they were holding truther signs, too. Surely, you must admit that that is some strong bias to show on TV. You don't even need to say anything, just show "9/11 was an inside job" for 4 hours.

Everyone knows that MSNBC definitely leans left, but I don't know if we can use the signs from an outdoor convention as proof. Maybe I am wrong, but the crowd is not hired by MSNBC, and probably are allowed to bring whatever type of non-profane sign they can think of. Saying crowd signs are proof of their left-leaning bias is like saying ESPN supports the "shocker" or use of Marijuana because I see signs in the background of College Gameday.

[Smokestack]

I said that FoxNews' "hard" news coverage is the fairest. There is a difference. Hard news relies on facts. Editorialized news combines news with opinion. Editorially, Fox slants pretty Right, but with "hard" news they use a lot of factually based news, and do a good job of presenting context and both sides.

Sure, while running a ticker of misinformation or slant at the bottom. Besides, even if the untruth you just told was true, the percentage of hard news to editorialized news is way skewed...outside of Chris Matthews (who has had his own share of bias accusations), who are their middling hard news guys? And aren't Carl Cameron and Brit Hume part of their hard news squad? Did you type that with a straight face?

[nuclearjew]

CNN just aired two anti-McCain audience signs during McCain's speech (one said "McCain Votes Against Vets" and the other said "You Can't Win With Occupation").

LEFTWING JEW-RUN MEDIA BIAS!

[redsox39]

Mark Foley is another. And if Larry Craig was crucified, why is he still serving the fine state of Idaho. Edwards wasn't even a Senator when his broke and, if you watch the talk shows, he's getting his now.


Because he is in Idaho and no one gives a fuck.
And neither one of them created a BABY with a coke whore in a house paid for by campaign funds donated by an unknowing public!

John Edwards is still getting $65,000 for speaking engagments...but now he is holding off until AFTER the elections:

John Edwards Admits He is a Politcal Liability

Well, not in so many words. But he just dropped out of that speaking engagement (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/politics/ny-liedwa0905,0,3599991.story) at Hofstra University he’d planned for next week, and he’s not doing any other public appearances until after — can you guess? — November. And here’s the reason he’s giving:
“Nothing is more important than electing Barack Obama and Joe Biden,” Edwards said in a statement released Thursday by his booking agency, the Harry Walker Agency in Manhattan. “I don’t want my appearance at these events to be a distraction from the important issues of the election, or from the important purpose of these meetings.”
It’s only a half-truth, but for him that’s a 100% increase. (Or is it? I stink at math.) He could have said he’s going to “spend more time with his family,” but that would only invite the question: “Which one?”
Hey, wait a sec… I thought Edwards was a private citizen? I thought this scandal had absolutely nothing to do with Obama? But there it is in black and white gray and slightly lighter gray: Edwards just went out of his way to link himself to Obama. Otherwise, why would appearing in public be a distraction from Obama’s campaign?
Which only lends more credence to the theory that the entire news industry turned a blind eye to the Rielle Hunter story for so long because they were worried it might screw up the election.
http://deceiver.com/2008/09/05/john-edwards-publicly-admits-hes-a-political-liability/

[redsox39]

After chairing his 527, you mouthbreather.

Since when don't you support people changing their minds? lol

That is like throwing every Democrat under the bus for voting for the Iraq war and now tossing GW under the bus for it. She is taking a page right from your book!

[redsox39]

Do Republicans detest being members of the media? Because that is essentially the only way this is possible. As far as I know, applicants aren't being questioned about their political beliefs during the interview process. So that means that if a bias exists, it's because there are far more left-leaning journalists than right.

The right has been bitching about this for years now, and yet, all I hear is bitching. I certainly don't see an influx of young right-leaning reporters, with fresh communications degrees, entering the job market, eager to end the left-dominated media empire.

So shut the fuck up about the bias. If you've stooped so low as to get your news from Fox, then what the fuck do you care about what's being reported elsewhere anyway? Obviously objectivity isn't your main concern.


Here is a novel idea, let's just report the news!?!? Holy crap! We might be on to something!

In any case, Fox News is the most watched news network in the US.

[vasili denisov]

Which only lends more credence to the theory that the entire news industry turned a blind eye to the Rielle Hunter story for so long because they were worried it might screw up the election.
http://deceiver.com/2008/09/05/john-edwards-publicly-admits-hes-a-political-liability/
What's the evidence that the liberal news media had knowledge of the affair before it was reported by the Inquirer?

[redsox39]

John Edwards was a figure in the Democratic Party, but with no real connection to the only story anyone was covering, the election, anymore.

Sarah Palin was a freshly announced vice presidential candidate, ANY fresh face gets screened like that.

Not to mention that it surprises you that it took a while for networks to run with a tabloid story? Remember Dan Rather's resignation over moving too fast with an unconfirmed story? FOX News and the Obama-is-a-secret-muslim story? Networks take time to report on stories that might be broken early in other sources because they generally try to confirm things.

They ran with the "Palin's retarded baby is really her daughters" on the Radio and TV before taking it back, didn't take time to fact check that one, even though it is mathmatically impossible. So don't give me that "fact checking crap".

The fact is, Edwards was giving the big speech at the convention, he was going to run with Obama, and the Media didn't want to fuck it up. Period.

and looking at the poll up top, you Sir, are the one who is wrong.

[redsox39]

What's the evidence that the liberal news media had knowledge of the affair before it was reported by the Inquirer?

None. Never claimed it. (wouldn't surprise me though) But not a single one touched it for 27 days after that NE acticle ran. and ran. and ran. Then people started wondering, and trying to google it. And until Edwards held a press conference. Then the LA times "Broke" the story...and buried it. If this were not the day of the internet, no one would have ever heard about it.

[redsox39]

Everyone knows that MSNBC definitely leans left, but I don't know if we can use the signs from an outdoor convention as proof. Maybe I am wrong, but the crowd is not hired by MSNBC, and probably are allowed to bring whatever type of non-profane sign they can think of. Saying crowd signs are proof of their left-leaning bias is like saying ESPN supports the "shocker" or use of Marijuana because I see signs in the background of College Gameday.

They can decide what makes the air, where the cameras point and where they set up. It is not like they would have shown a naked guy's dick flopping in the wind for 4 hours. Or a sign that said "FUCK MSNBC" would they?

[vasili denisov]

What's the evidence that the liberal news media had knowledge of the affair before it was reported by the Inquirer?

None. Never claimed it. (wouldn't surprise me though)
Well, when you "lend credence" to a theory, you're stating here's support for this theory, in this case, that the media turned a blind eye to this story for political reasons. Here, you're making an assertion, without any support for it. And now you're claiming you didn't make the assertion. You sound like the mainstream media...when Karl Rove is talking about something.

[redsox39]

Well, when you "lend credence" to a theory, you're stating here's support for this theory, in this case, that the media turned a blind eye to this story for political reasons. You're making an assertion, without any support for it. And now you're claiming you didn't make the assertion. You sound like the mainstream media...when Karl Rove is talking about something.

I am saying that after the news was public, once the story was broke,granted, from a tabloid and on the blogs, the General Press covered none of it...for 27 days. Almost a full month of pretending it wasn't true. Like they were waiting for the green light to acknowledge it.

It was the Number one search on Google (not porn related) a week before the LA Times even wrote its first story...

[Mr. Brown]

. If this were not the day of the internet, no one would have ever heard about it.
It's true as hell that's why it seems like so many more people are getting more knowlegable, it's b/c they now have a multitude of outlets from which they can get information from.

[Stax]

and looking at the poll up top, you Sir, are the one who is wrong.

Looking at other polls a majority of GMFers have above average cocks. What do you believe?

[redsox39]

Looking at other polls a majority of GMFers have above average cocks. What do you believe?

touche'

[Smokestack]

Since when don't you support people changing their minds? lol

That is like throwing every Democrat under the bus for voting for the Iraq war and now tossing GW under the bus for it. She is taking a page right from your book!

Gotcha, Democrats are the OFs (original flip-floppers). Who's a sheep now?

[redsox39]

Gotcha, Democrats are the OFs (original flip-floppers). Who's a sheep now?

Just because I don't want to write it on every thread I am on, but in general, I hate all politicians. They all lie and they all flip flop. We either need to hold them accountable OR accept that they changed their mind because that is exactly what they are supposed to do. aren't they supposed to represent the people? So if popular opinion sways one way, shouldn't it be that the politician representing that population changes too?

It is really a tough one to call, but in general, Any Politician will say ANYTHING to please WHOMEVER is listening in bulk at that moment.

[Morfin]

It is really a tough one to call, but in general, Any Politician will say ANYTHING to please WHOMEVER is listening in bulk at that moment.

Not in Detroit. Oh, wait. Nevermind.

[lce-man]

Up to a certain point, the more intellectual media is, the more it leans left.
Of course this doesn't count for the likes of Fox.

[redsox39]

Wow...that doesn't sound biased OR retarded. Good job!


(Sarcasam)

[Candycane]

What do you listen only to 100% AM radio? I still read the NY Times, Washington Post, and La Times. I Read Time, Newsweek, and Playboy. (ok, I look at Playboy). I watch CNN, FOX and ABC news.

Here, example. The John Edwards Scandel. Here he is cheating on his dying wife with a coke whore who is having his love baby and using campaign fund to cover it up. Oh, and he was "probably" going to be named Obama's VP. All the Blogs were talking about, but no one in the real media wants to touch it. Finally, 3 weeks after people in Somolia knew about it, they begrudingly report the story...
But now, The daily kos has some bloggers who think a 5 month pregnant 17 year old is really the mother of a down syndrome baby who's age makes this physically impossible, and REAL reporters ask these questions to Sara Palin.

Just off the top and current, this is blatant protection of the left by the Left wing media, and...attacking a woman as quick and brutally as possible since she is from the right. I mean, 5 days ago we have never heard of her, and now she is pulling a retarded version of the plot of Desparate housewives? Come on....


Don't you get that you pretty much only think that because you hate the left? See it works both ways , I can say FAUX NeWS is totally not fair and balanced but I'm opposite of the right, so my point of view is pretty biased and invalid when coming to that.

[redsox39]

Ok, well here is one way to get Sara Palins kids out of the Media crush...Tell everyone that John Edwards is the Father.

[Candycane]

You are a very testy republican.

[redsox39]

Don't you get that you pretty much only think that because you hate the left? See it works both ways , I can say FAUX NeWS is totally not fair and balanced but I'm opposite of the right, so my point of view is pretty biased and invalid when coming to that.

which is why I find it so funny you guys even complain about Fox News.

You have CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and every major paper and Magizine.

And you guys find time to to point out that the Wall Street Journal and Fox News are biased.

I can't believe you can find time to watch or read the real news while you are getting indoctrinated by the Left wingers all day!

[redsox39]

You are a very testy republican.


The Best part is, while admittedly conservative...I can't stand the Republicans either. I want small government and at least a 40% cut in spending...

Bat Shit Crazy Obama and Old Man River McCain gonna give me that? Nope.

Get to throw my vote away again...with a 3rd party.

Not that it matters, my state is going Red no matter what.

But with dipshits like you that don't believe in People, the abilities of people, or the responsibilities of people, I keep getting stuck with asshats like Bush and Clinton who just want to raise the power of government by giving us more and more social programs and less responsibility.

Why don't we just let them pick our jobs, tellus when to have kids and redistribute all of our money? That would sure take alot of pressure off of me to live my life of freedom!!

[Candycane]

You are seriously ridiculous.

Interestingly enough, this "dip shit" didn't resort to calling you a dip shit. You haven't gotten the whole I can believe in something different than you do thing yet huh? Let me guess you're catholic too?

[Hanover Fist]

I'm the same way. Both Obama and McCain are pure unadulterated shit. Neither one has a fucking clue what to do once they get to the White House. The biggest problem I have is with what Obama wants to do, not that he will be able to manage it but with the possibility of a Dem super-majority I don't want to take the chance.
I haven't decided 100% whether McCain will get my vote because I seriously detest the man and if I do end up voting for him it will only be because I feel I must vote and I'd sooner vote for Pol Pot than Obama.
I am conservative first and foremost, the republican party can fuck itself if it thinks putting candidates like this in front of us inspires the base.

[redsox39]

You are seriously ridiculous.

Interestingly enough, this "dip shit" didn't resort to calling you a dip shit. You haven't gotten the whole I can believe in something different than you do thing yet huh? Let me guess you're catholic too?


Yes, while that was below the belt, I was grouping you into a large pool of asshats, so while I can't pretend I didn't say that, I can try to make it better by saying you only make up about 0.000000000000001% of the dipshit population?

In anycase, I am NOT Catholic, that is just another brainwashed bunch of groupies looking to be taken care of.

I just think, while I love all the electronics and life easing things we have today, I was born about 100 years too late (deep thoughts by Redsox39...) I hate the fact that if you are too lazy or "unable" to take care of yourself or your family, it is someone else's fault. What happened to hard work and doing what had to be done? Income tax used to be a single digit percentage...so you could take more home, and use it as you saw fit.

Now, we live in an age where 25,30, even 40% income tax is not only normal, it is expected (if you have a decent job).

And still...The government can't control spending and niether can the people.

How can a country's populace have a negative Savings rate? American's spent more than they earned? This whole entitlement crap has to go.

Not everyone needs a Flat screen TV. Not everyone needs an IPOD or blackberry. Not everyone needs a new car or house.

While I agree that the AIG and other insurance and Morgage compaines need to have a special level of hell, People did this to themselves as well.

If you SPEND more than you EARN...you will lose in the end. Period. Quit trying to keep up with your neighbors and just do what is right.

Because as long as American's are spending more than they earn, so will our politicians.


Which all ties back together with my Dipshits comment. Full circle.

[taters]

Ok, you are right. John Edwards, Fresh off his second run at the big seat looks to at least get in to the VP Spot. HE IS CHEATING ON HIS WIFE WITH A COKE WHORE WHO HAD HIS LOVE CHILD AND HE PAID FOR THE COVER UP WITH MONEY HE GOT FROM HIS CAMPAIGN SUPPORTERS! And all this after he rode the sympathy bus from his wife's cancer pretty far, parading her around on all his stops.

If you tell me that if this would have happened to Any Living Republican figure who has ever thrown his hat in the ring and is still alive, they would have ignored this too? What if this was Mitt Romney? They would have looked the other way too? Get real and take off your Blinders, Sheep Boy.

Cough Cough...didnt John McCain leave his cancer ridden wife years ago to marry Zombie-Cyndi-Moneybags?

[Da Raider]

Cough Cough...didnt John McCain leave his cancer ridden wife years ago to marry Zombie-Cyndi-Moneybags?

years ago. While he was not running for President of the United States. Apples to Oranges as far as media coverage is concerned. Apples to Apples as far as bad taste is concerned.

[taters]

years ago. While he was not running for President of the United States. Apples to Oranges as far as media coverage is concerned. Apples to Apples as far as bad taste is concerned.

Your oranges taste, look and smell like apples.

[Soup Nazi]

If we want to get technical here, John Edwards wasn't running for president either, at the time.

[Da Raider]

Your oranges taste, look and smell like apples.

actually, my oranges taste like screwdrivers.

[IdiotBrain]

They are in line with whatever party is in power. Pandering to the majority creates more access and more money.

Except for Fox News, they're right wing.


Is this guy retarded?

[Archangel]

A journalist has to be at least somewhat literate, so I can't really blame him for not leaning towards the side that calls literate people "un-American" and "liberal coastal élitist".

[IdiotBrain]

A journalist has to be at least somewhat literate, so I can't really blame him for not leaning towards the side that calls literate people "un-American" and "liberal coastal élitist".


When you make this statement I can only presume you refer to right-wing, redneck, gun-toting, toothless douchepidgeons.

Forget not that a large percentage of inner city "minorities" are quite liberal... and don't even seem to be able to communicate in the english language.

[Mustard]

...now if we could just get them to actually vote. fuck...

[IdiotBrain]

Dem foo's gon' hafta lern dem sum english fur dey kin manage a votin boof, yo.

[Archangel]

Wow, racism.


Nice.

And having heard rednecks speak, trust me, their language's got next to nothing to do with the one of Milton and Shelley, either.

[IdiotBrain]

That was 99% a joke.

The other 1% was malice.

While I agree that the large majority of said inner city minorities don't vote, neither do the large majority of aforementioned toothless redneck fuckheads.

I can't really blame him for not leaning towards the side that calls literate people "un-American" and "liberal coastal élitist".

So, everyone who doesn't lean left is an illiterate moron?

HMMM. Maybe thats why the conservative side of the country calls liberals elitist.

I sit on the fence when it comes to left or right. The large majority of media sits squarely on the left side of the fence.

[Insomniac]

George Will became an ivory tower elitist as soon as he thoughtfully criticized Palin.

[redsox39]

Cough Cough...didnt John McCain leave his cancer ridden wife years ago to marry Zombie-Cyndi-Moneybags?

so John McCain is tortured for 5 years, comes back a cripple to find out his wife who he hasn't spoken with in 5 years is a cripple too. Then he has an affair...and marries this lady...and is still married to her. Yep. he had an affair.

There is no love child, no campaign cover up, no felonies or fraud commited, and he didn't play his crippled wife up everyday for a sympathy vote.

They sound Identical. Good call Taters. Maybe you can find a racist angle to it as well, since all problems are because of whitey.

[redsox39]

Is this guy retarded?

Yes.

[redsox39]

If we want to get technical here, John Edwards wasn't running for president either, at the time.


No...but he was about to be tapped as the VP...and everyone knows it. The fact that he covered it up with your hard earned welfare checks seems to escape you... :p

[Archangel]

Excape?


Is that like the Exc key on my compu... oh, wait, it says "Esc".

Now I'm confused.

[redsox39]

Excape?


Is that like the Exc key on my compu... oh, wait, it says "Esc".

Now I'm confused.

Thank you sir, may I please have another?

[atoms]

The media leans left in general. Fox news and much of AM radio leans or bends over backwards right. But the difference is I think the left media actually cares about fairness and media bias. I think they make an effort to present the other side and to be as un-biased as humans (with biases) can be.

Some have said that it's better that Fox be openly biased vs. the standard media which is covertly biased. Frankly I'm more for the media that tries to cover both sides. Sure their personal bias may come through at times.....but they are trying to present both sides of a story.

For whatever reasons the type of people who get into writing and reporting seem to be of a more liberal bent then is true of the general population. I'm not for hiring conservatives on a quota system to balance this out.