Nice and Naughty list for 2006...

[BigBuddhaPup]

I think it is time to look back at the year 2006 and make a list of people that have excelled in being nice as well as being naughty... I will take all suggestions, and in 9 days, I will compile a top 10, nice and naughty lists....


Please give a short description of why a certain person/institution needs to be included on either list...


For example... Naughty - GW - Iraq War, Tax Cuts, Stem Cell Veto, Guest Worker Program...

Nice - Pittsburgh Steelers - First sixth seed to win Superbowl, Bettis finishes career with SB ring...

I look forward to your suggestions for list...:thumbup:

[IntheNet]

Naughty (Synonomous with Stupid)

Big Jack Murtha: Blew his load on "Cut & Run" then Lost Leader Spot! Sorry Jack! Go back to bribing ABSCAM Agents!

Valeria Plame and Ambassador Wilson: Both lied about the whole thing, accused Karl Rove, Wilson was proven a liar when Richard Armitage revealed that he leaked the goods, and both have now faded from scene... good riddance!

Nice (Synonomous with Smart)

Karl Rove: Architect of GWB's two victories in 2000 and 2004; wisely allows Dems to get advantage in 2006 so that 2008 presidential race will be again captured by GOP!

Donald Rumsfeld: Longest serving Secretary of Defense; rehauls DoD to more effectively respond; defends nation from domestic terrorism for five years.

[CKFresh]

INTHENET, hahahahaha, you are obviously kidding.

Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as the worst secretary of defense ever. He completely botched a war that was very winnable.

Karl Rove allowed the Dems to win in 2006? You are definately just joking around.

Thanks for the laugh though.

[CKFresh]

NICE
George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton - They raised more money for the Katrina and Tsunami relief than George W. spends in a day in Iraq, (and that's a lot!)

Chuck Schumer - Brought the Democrats back to power and gained the momentum for 2008 when America will get it's first African-American president.

NAUGHTY
Mark Foley - Well the religious right and their morals just keep coming back to haunt them. Mark Foley, shame on you.

FOX news - After the Mark Foley scandle broke, they ran the story the entire day with a (D) next to his name, implying he was a democrat.

And finally, that religious leader who was the head of the Evangelical movement. He got caught doing crystal meth and having sex with gay prostitutes. That my friend, is poetic justice.

[HibachiDG]

Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as the worst secretary of defense ever. He completely botched a war that was very winnable.


How was the war "very winnable"?

[CKFresh]

Well Doug, if the US would have had a plan for the insugency, they could have toppled the government very quickly, like they did, secured the border, established an Iraqi military, and got the hell out of there. Maybe wouldn't have been perfect. But it would have taken about a year and cost a fraction of the cost and half the human life.

Rumsfeld has admitted, they had absolutely no plan for after the fall of Saddam.

[HibachiDG]

I agree that they should have had a plan after the fall of Saddam, but even with a plan, I don't see how things could be anything but complicated.

[IntheNet]

Rumsfeld has admitted, they had absolutely no plan for after the fall of Saddam.

"Democrat Talking Points" or "Your Personal Opinion" and based on what?

[CKFresh]

IntheNet.
I don't have the time to do the research for you. Get your news other places than FOX news and you will know these things. Google it and a garuntee you will find a quote, maybe even a video clip, of people from the Bush administration admitting that they had no plan for after the fall of Saddam.

Seriously, do some research, it's not my job to educate you, but I guess you are too stubborn to do your own research. If Fox News doesn't say it, it's not true right?

[IntheNet]

If Fox News doesn't say it, it's not true right?

I use other media to gain the truth... On Iraq news I go to the Pentagon's site and listen to daily briefings...On political news I listen to several sources and read bloggers on what is happening... many of the blogs tell a more accurate record of news than liberal media...On national news I refer to at least three or four sources.... And of course I listen to Fox News...fair & balanced.... You should do the same...

So much liberal lefty propaganda has made you a George Soros talkalike...

[cheesey]

IntheNet....

Which story at the accident scene is the correct one? Don't run from my question.

[IntheNet]

IntheNet....

Which story at the accident scene is the correct one? Don't run from my question.

Go ask a policeman... they do this every day... they listen to as many bystanders at car accident as possible and recreate the facts based on combined observers testimony and evidence.
~
Much like the Bible was written... stories and accounts of facts passed down by many and formed into books to best represent the facts as they happened and the evidence that was available.

[cheesey]

Who was lying and who wasn't?

[cheesey]

The point is, there is no "correct" story. They're all correct from each persons point of view. Why is your religion right and everybody elses wrong?

[IntheNet]

Who was lying and who wasn't?

Not a case of "lying" at all... various folks have various perspectives of accident from their particular vantage point... all are similiar to the facts in the case, but each is slightly different from their view...

[BigBuddhaPup]

Sorry, Donald Rumsfeld.. tough luck guys you don't have no body armor, and king of the rhetorical questions will not be on the Nice list...Nor would I put Henry "Two Faced" Kissinger on the list either...

Karl Rove, being a smear artist, also will not be on any list... I wouldn't put James Carville on the list either...

Valerie Plame was outted by this administration, which was treason, plain and simple...it was payback because Joseph Wilson didn't walk in step with the Neo-cons... again, not on either list...

GHW Bush and Clinton, for what they did for Katrina, are definitely will be considered for list...

As for political naughty.. I will just say GW administration...it covers so much.. Mark Foley is a piece of scat... William Jefferson, Duke Cunningham, Tom DeLay, etc... maybe just saying gov't will blanket the whole thing...

How about trying to look outside the political sphere for nice/naughty if that is possible...Muhammad Yunus, for example, winning the Nobel Peace Prize for Micro Loans to help the poorest citizens on this Earth try to better themselves...

[IntheNet]

Valerie Plame was outted by this administration, which was treason, plain and simple...it was payback because Joseph Wilson didn't walk in step with the Neo-cons... again, not on either list......

WRONG... WRONG.... WRONG...

RICHARD ARMITAGE

The Man Who Said Too Much
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/
A book coauthored by NEWSWEEK's Michael Isikoff details Richard Armitage's central role in the Valerie Plame leak.

Armitage admitted he was the one that revealed Plame's identity...Armitage is against Iraq War and a Democrat.

[RavenPoe]

Richard Armitage = Oliver North

I too old to buy these stories.

[BigBuddhaPup]

WRONG... WRONG.... WRONG...

RICHARD ARMITAGE

The Man Who Said Too Much
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/
A book coauthored by NEWSWEEK's Michael Isikoff details Richard Armitage's central role in the Valerie Plame leak.

Armitage admitted he was the one that revealed Plame's identity...Armitage is against Iraq War and a Democrat.

It was from this administration... right, right, right... Cheney/Scooter/Armitage... Cheney got away with it, but it was clearly documented that he brought the story to Scooters' and Armitages' attention... Scooter got a slap on the wrist.. and Armitage has gotten away with it as well...so far.. it was treason, or do you think it is okay to out agents to public?

Nah, nevermind...your retort will be typical... how about sticking to the premise of the thread... nice/naughty list... None of these people are going on it..

[BigBuddhaPup]

Richard Armitage = Oliver North

I too old to buy these stories.

Are you still moving with us to Arizona on the ocean? If not, I will miss you...

[CKFresh]

IntheNet,

You don't really think FOX News is fair and balanced do you? If you REALLY think that you have proven to me you are absolutely insane. Other networks may be liberal, but at least they try to hide it. Fox news doesn't even TRY to hide their political leanings. DO you know anything about Ruppert Murdock?

Like I said, when the Mark Foley storey broke, they put a (D) next to his name all day. Many of their reporters are either involved in republican campaigns or married to people in campaigns.

Look at Hannity and Combs. Hannity is a superstar among conservatives while Combs is a squirrelly, centrist who most liberals don't even like. Real BALANCED. (that was sarcastic)

[chiefsfan27]

IntheNet,

You don't really think FOX News is fair and balanced do you? If you REALLY think that you have proven to me you are absolutely insane. Other networks may be liberal, but at least they try to hide it. Fox news doesn't even TRY to hide their political leanings. DO you know anything about Ruppert Murdock?

Like I said, when the Mark Foley storey broke, they put a (D) next to his name all day. Many of their reporters are either involved in republican campaigns or married to people in campaigns.

Look at Hannity and Combs. Hannity is a superstar among conservatives while Combs is a squirrelly, centrist who most liberals don't even like. Real BALANCED. (that was sarcastic)

CK, if you think that Liberal news networks (everone besides Fox) try to hide their political views, you are either in denial, or blinded by your bias for the Liberal party.

[carter08]

Naughty (Synonomous with Stupid)



Nice (Synonomous with Smart)

Karl Rove: Architect of GWB's two victories in 2000 and 2004; wisely allows Dems to get advantage in 2006 so that 2008 presidential race will be again captured by GOP!



Calling Karl Rove nice is like calling Mike Vick slow

[Ravana]

Ooh! Ooh! I've got a whole list of "naughty" people... but the Admins over here asked me/us to stop talking about them.... :D

[CKFresh]

fine chiefsfan, but will you at least admit that FOx news is nowhere near fair or balanced?

[RavenPoe]

Are you still moving with us to Arizona on the ocean? If not, I will miss you...

Maybe, but right now I'm looking into buying a bridge in downtown Brooklyn. I figure I can turn a pretty good profit by painting it red and naming it the George W. Bush Bridge. :lol:

Or possibly the Jesus Christ Memorial Bridge! Pretty catchy name, aint?

[chiefsfan27]

fine chiefsfan, but will you at least admit that FOx news is nowhere near fair or balanced?

Sure, in accordance with unfairness and amount of unbalance of CNN and other networks. But yes, they are unbalanced in favor of conservatives.

[RavenPoe]

Sure, in accordance with unfairness and amount of unbalance of CNN and other networks. But yes, they are unbalanced in favor of conservatives.

CNN is mostly balanced. A little left leaning maybe but no where near the antithesis of Fox. MSNBC is centrist if anything. ABC is right-wing. The old "liberal media" nonsense is just that; old. As in outdated.

[cheesey]

Why don't the news channels just report the news? I hate people trying to make me think as they do. Do all these big media networks think that the average person is too much of an imbicile to make up their own minds? It appears that way doesn't it?

I watch CNN, Fox, CNBC, ETC., ETC. and get a charge out of the differences in their slants on stories. These people are AFRAID! They're afraid of people who can estabalish their own opinions on the events surrounding us.

Does anybody agree with this?

[CKFresh]

chiefsfan, I'm glad to see you can at least admit that.

As far as CNN. Name the people they have that OPENLY call conservatives names and OPENLY embrace liberals. Fox News has their two main shows (O'Reilly and Hannity) where liberals are constantly belittled and insulted.

[Jaguar Rick]

Naughty: Terrell Owens-Phlegm Fatale; George W. Bush-Agitator; Karl Rove-Dirty Personified; Dick Cheney-Team Sprayer; Enron Board-A waste of energy; Mark Foley-Turn the Page; Dennis Hastert-New Breau Brummell

Nice: Nancy Pelosi-Save US!; Ross Perot-That Giant Sucking Sound came from the White House; Colin Powell-Brushed off Bush in a dignified manner; Anybody from any party winning an election in November from a Republican. The worst is hopefully over; People who fight the big business loving administration to lower drug prices, get health insurance for everyone, and care about the poor.

[Ravana]

CNN used to be mostly balanced... I have found them, or at least some of their leading figures of late, to be appallingly leftist. (<sigh> Whatever became of Bernard Shaw, anyway? Or at least his like?)

I agree that MSNBC is mostly centrist—and is probably the best service out there, at least as far as television goes.

I don't see any of the three old networks as being conservative-leaning. NBC (as opposed to MSNBC) is leftist—and I see ABC as being so as well (where did you get the impression that they were conservative?). CBS used to be far and away the best news network; that's crumbled in recent years, and they have moved from a relatively centrist position slightly to the left, in my view... though, in all honesty, the quality of reporting has fallen so far that it's hard to tell where they stand. Same with ABC, for that matter... which may be why I don't see the bias you do.

Nor do I see Fox as being as far to the right as you do. I think it only looks conservative in contrast to its rivals.

And I do hold that the media taken as a whole—there are always exceptions—is more liberal than anything else. Those who cannot be classified as liberal do not constitute enough weight to bring it back to the center. One must consider not only the inclinations of the individual, but also the distribution of his/her views: yes, there are conservative commentators, but when are they on? Are they the network anchors? Are they in prime time? Do they even have their own shows, or are they offset by a liberal commentator sharing the same time?

One thing I do know: Wolf Blitzer was so heavily and obviously favoring the Democrats during election night coverage that it made me positively sick... I had to switch to Chris Matthews, who was also leaning that direction, but with far less emphasis. I also remember, from the 2000 Presidential Election, that many of the states were "called" by various services in favor of Gore, in spite of narrow margins and small percentages of returns... whereas other critical states (in particular Ohio, which I watch with some interest...) were not called for Bush—in spite of the same or larger margins and much higher percentages of returns counted. (I'm talking about 40-50% of precincts reporting, as opposed to, say, 2-3%, or even basing calls solely on exit polls.) It took hours for even the first station to call Ohio for Bush—wish I could remember which one—and another hour after that before all the rest were willing to... whereas they continued to call narrow-margin states for Gore throughout this time. (Several of them even had to reverse one of these calls, when the vote tallies actually did begin to come in!) Nor can they use the excuse that "critical" precincts "hadn't reported yet": first, because most of them had, and second, because the margin never narrowed throughout the night... it only got wider. Ohio wasn't the only state they did this with; there were, to my recollection, two others, though I can't remember which. Wish I had written them down. To me, that's pretty clear evidence of bias in favor of one candidate over another. Nor are these the only incidents I've seen of this.

End point: if you want good news—about the U.S. or in general—go to the BBC. You're far more likely to get it there. Or read the Wall Street Journal. While it may have a bias (this depends more on the columnist than the paper), you also have to remember its audience: it is purchased by people who are using its information to make financial decisions... and are therefore relying on that information to be accurate—whatever spin is put upon it. If the WSJ fails in this, they will stop selling papers. You can count on them to be factual. Surprisingly, the second best paper in the U.S. is the Christian Science Monitor: I have found it to be both remarkably accurate and unbiased—a surprise, indeed, I think, to most of us. But it is. For a heavily biased but nonetheless factually accurate paper, look to the (British) Manchester Guardian... leans way to the left (we're talking borderline socialist here—nor am I sure which side of the border they're on), but its reporting is still solid. Sift the facts from the bias and make your own decisions on matters.

Oh, and I've recently found a very interesting online news service you might want to have a look at: the Huffington Post. Go check it out—whatever your leaning. It's worth a look.

[cheesey]

I'm not much of a political debater. I loathe ALL POLITICIANS!!! Democrats, Republicans, Independents.......they are all just looking for new ways to tax my sorry ass and blow my hard earned money on something I could care less about or give it to somebody who doesn't deserve it.

Unfortunately, I live in Wisconsin. We have some of the highest taxes in the country. Not just income taxes, which aren't too bad, but the taxes you don't actually see. The tax on gas is the highest in the country. There is an extra tax on beer. There are countless others but I don't have the list handy. If you can out a tax on it, we have one.

Madison Wisconsin is one of the most liberal cities in the nation. As one local newspaper put it, " An island of insane fantasies surrounded by reality". The politicians in this state want to tell you not only how to spend your money, but how to live your life as well. This goes for democrats as well as rerepublicans.

Do any of you other people live in such places?

[Jaguar Rick]

Definition of Liberal Media=Any news organization that reports things as they see them, without the embellishments so loved by the conservatives. Such as: Fox News Report- American forces today opened 9 hospitals and 6 elementary schools in Iraq today. Meanwhile Coalition forces killed 26 suspected terrorists in a schoolyard in Anbar Province. Townspeople lied when they said those killed were children. A Fox reporter on scene said, "these dirty Muslim terrorists are known to masquerade as children. And everyone knows all Muslims hate us and want to kill us all." Fox has also learned that great strides have been made to train and equip Iraqi forces.

CNN,BBC,CBS,ITN,NBC-Baghdad continues to be hit by IEDs as 66 Iraqis were killed today and over 200 wounded. 5 more American servicemen lost their lives due to insufficient armour on the vehicles. It is too dangerous to travel to the Baghdad airport without armed escorts. The Red Cross today confirmed that the schoolyard bombed by coalition aircraft were indeed children. A US spokesman said they were checking that report. Oil exports needed to fund the war are non-existent due to continued sabotage. So far 1500 Iraqi have been trained to replace Coalition forces in Bagdad.

[Ravana]

Definition of Liberal Media=Any news organization that reports things as they see them, without the embellishments so loved by the conservatives.

Oh, bull. You must know better than that, Rick: the liberals put just as much "embellishment" on their reports as the conservatives do. (The ones at the ends of the spectrum, at least: and I agree, your Fox report is a real winner of "how not to report the news.")

Example to the other side:
5 more American servicemen lost their lives due to insufficient armour on the vehicles.

What kind of vehicles? Were they supposed to be armored? To what extent? Saying that their armor was "insufficient" is pejorative—it suggests a lack of concern for the servicemen on the part of their commanders and the entire military structure. That one word biases the story—heavily—in favor of those who oppose the war... i.e. liberals. Why was it not reported simply as "Five more American servicemen lost their lives today"? Or even "...in a such-and-so attack on such-and-so target"? In fact, especially why not the latter? Where were they? Were they the target of the attack, or was something else? Were they engaged in fighting, or were they the victims of a surprise bombing?

And why didn't the other services mention the opening of the hospitals and schools? Did they not find that newsworthy... or was it not something that would support their bias?

Do you see what I mean? Any news story can be biased by using a single word—any word that gives, or implies, a judgment. And bias can be just as easily introduced by ignoring something altogether... like the opening of the schools on the one hand, or the conditions in Baghdad on the other? That Fox report was awful, I agree—disgusting, even... I generally don't watch them, simply because I consider the bulk of their reporting inferior, not because of any bias. On the other hand, I don't watch TV news much on a regular basis anyway—barring big or developing events, wehre information can arise live as it happens; I prefer to get my news elsewhere.

Then consider the final line of each report you cited. Which shows greater bias, and whose point does it favor? I find the two pretty much even—I'd actually call the second one better: a solid number, "1500," sounds better to me than "great strides," which could mean anything or nothing. On the other hand, those giving that number might've chosen to use it because they felt it sounded small—as opposed to the "great strides" the other service reported. I prefer the number, and consider it better reporting... but if they chose to use the number for that purpose—for making the effort sound small and ineffective—then they are definitely displaying bias. And I'm betting that's how somebody saw it.

Equally important—more important, in fact—is what the services choose to report... and what they do not. How much "news" are you missing, simply because someone in a studio somewhere decided it's not "newsworthy" enough? This goes beyond "liberal" and "conservative"—though that plays a part, too: who reports which stories, and how do they choose which ones to report... never mind how they choose to report them? But the real issue here, for me, is not the bias you see: it's the bias you don't.

Someone chooses what you get to see as news. This ought to be the most important consideration in your mind every day, every time you watch a news show, read a paper, etc. Someone has chosen what you get to receive as knowledge—what data will be used to shape your world-view and inform your actions. There are, quite literally, thousands of news stories every day that come into the media outlets. How many are reported... in a half-hour news show? Fifteen? Twenty? Maybe? If you're lucky, and they don't spend five minutes dwelling on some minor issue somewhere, like a celebrity trial, a child stuck down a well, or climbers stuck on a mountain? Honestly... I feel for those climbers and their families, too, but was it news?

No. It was not... not in the sense of keeping the viewers informed of issues important to or with an impact on their daily lives. It was drama, pure and simple. And that occupied far less news time than the other two examples I used.

Does anybody here know how a decades-old civil war on an out-of-the-way island nobody ever talks about could spark a nuclear confrontation? (One of my favorite examples of "what you don't know can hurt you.")

This is a question I love to make people consider, so I'll ask it again, directly:

Who chooses what you get to know?

[Ravana]

P.S. (and sorry about the double-post...:o )

CNN,BBC,CBS,ITN,NBC-Baghdad continues to be hit....

Gee, all of them? That should bring my question into even better focus... all of them reporting the same thing(s)? Precisely the same thing(s)?

How similar was the wording of each report?

What are the chances that every single one of these outlets is relying on the same source for their stories?

...a source that chooses what they get to see—and report—in the first place, even before their own news editors do... and gets to impose its own bias before anyone else does?

Be very suspicious of multiple news stories that say the same thing. This is not in itself an endorsement of accuracy. Check on their sources: they are very often using the same, single source for their reports—something that came of the AP waiver wire, for instance. (I can't believe how few sources of information are actually used—follow up on internet "news" services and other outlets: you'll often find that the ten or twenty stories you're seeing are actually a single story repeated endlessly.) I'm not condemning them for this... just pointing out that agreement of reports does not mean consensus among those who actually witnessed an event, or, more often, collected data on it afterwards.

[Jaguar Rick]

P.S. (and sorry about the double-post...:o )



Gee, all of them? That should bring my question into even better focus... all of them reporting the same thing(s)? Precisely the same thing(s)?

How similar was the wording of each report?

What are the chances that every single one of these outlets is relying on the same source for their stories?

...a source that chooses what they get to see—and report—in the first place, even before their own news editors do... and gets to impose its own bias before anyone else does?

Be very suspicious of multiple news stories that say the same thing. This is not in itself an endorsement of accuracy. Check on their sources: they are very often using the same, single source for their reports—something that came of the AP waiver wire, for instance. (I can't believe how few sources of information are actually used—follow up on internet "news" services and other outlets: you'll often find that the ten or twenty stories you're seeing are actually a single story repeated endlessly.) I'm not condemning them for this... just pointing out that agreement of reports does not mean consensus among those who actually witnessed an event, or, more often, collected data on it afterwards.

Ravana, Ravana, It's only an exaggeration. I don't mean that all newspeople say the same thing, although if you've ever worked in the media you know that almost all the news you get is from just a few services. Especially if you get World news from a local or regional outlet. Reuters, AP, etc. Look at the football stories on all the internet sites. They are almost all the same. From AP.
My post was just a tongue-in-cheek look at the way I see the old time networks, as compared to FOX.

[Ravana]

if you've ever worked in the media you know that almost all the news you get is from just a few services.

Right. What I was after.

Sorry I was a little overboard—not directed at you so much as the community at large. I'm trying to educate, here.... :o This is an issue I feel very strongly on (duh...): that most people are unaware of how heavily filtered their information is, and how biased. Further, most people choose to watch only those services that agree with, and thereby reinforce, their bias. The "stories" you provided me with are perfect examples—whether they were real or not.

Be aware of your own biases, and you will recognize them more easily in others. Be aware of their biases... and then, once you've heard their stories (whoever they are—newsmen or neighbors), stop and ask yourself how the story would've been told form a different point of view. And also ask yourself: "What wasn't said? What was left out?" This can be one of the most important analytical tools you can ever employ.

And I still don't like Fox, so we agree there.

(Boy, are we ever getting more sophisticated here than we ever had a chance to back in the old days....)

[Jaguar Rick]

(Further, most people choose to watch only those services that agree with, and thereby reinforce, their bias.)

Ravana, Truer words have not been spoken. You are so right. I watch CNN in the morning, and CBS in the evening. I feel comfortable with both, and they seldom disgust me. I got into the CBS habit when Walter Crokite was the reporter. I still think he was the best. I know my exaggeration of the FOX news channel wasn't the best read, but before I made up my mind on them (FOX), I watched them out of curiosity, and was amazed by the bias. I was once called by a so-called polling co. during the Bush 1 and Clinton election. I was asked "are you offended by the fact that Bill Clinton chose not to serve in the military?" I hung-up on them knowing it was just a dirty political trick. The same sort of questions I've witnessed on FOX.

[Ravana]

I got into the CBS habit when Walter Crokite was the reporter. I still think he was the best.

Didn't we all... and don't we all?

I'm amazed the other network news shows even survived his time as anchor.

Like I said, your examples were good, even if made up. They can be used to show precisely what to look out for. And I have seen reporters like your fictional Fox one... can't remember where, and if I could, I'd be sure not to go back....

I always answer pollsters—or at least, when I have the time to. I like skewing their results. Besides, if this country's being run on poll results these days—as it seems to be—I need to take every opportunity to have my voice heard.

Of course, they probably just decide I'm a weirdo and trash my results as "outliers" as soon as they hang up.... :wtf:

[BigBuddhaPup]

CNN is mostly balanced. A little left leaning maybe but no where near the antithesis of Fox. MSNBC is centrist if anything. ABC is right-wing. The old "liberal media" nonsense is just that; old. As in outdated.



CNN is leaning to the right as well lately... Nancy Grace, Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, these people are in the primetime schedule..

MSNBC is the closest thing to middle than anyone...

ABC is Another Bush Channel...

Fox is a proproganda machine...

CBS used to lean to the left until Rather got his peepee smacked...

NBC is close to the middle of the road...

[BigBuddhaPup]

Why don't the news channels just report the news? I hate people trying to make me think as they do. Do all these big media networks think that the average person is too much of an imbicile to make up their own minds? It appears that way doesn't it?

I watch CNN, Fox, CNBC, ETC., ETC. and get a charge out of the differences in their slants on stories. These people are AFRAID! They're afraid of people who can estabalish their own opinions on the events surrounding us.

Does anybody agree with this?


I concur that our media is consolidated (via our idiotic FCC), and it is just a bottom line business with hardly any journalistic integrity....

[Ravana]

Why don't the news channels just report the news?

Because, unfortunately, they are businesses like any other... and have discovered, or at any rate convinced themselves, that entertainment sells better. Thus the sensationalized stories of things that normally wouldn't even make page two on a newspaper... or at least don't unless the national media grabs them.

What, do we all think that only one two-year-old ever fell down a well in our entire history? That there was never a celebrity before O. J. that walked on a murder charge? That no kid ever brought a gun to school before Columbine? All of these things happened before, and went by without national notice... but not now; not the second and third, at least.

And how much time does your local news spend on fires and auto accidents in your city? Yes, these may deserve local reporting... but how big a time slot? How many witness interviews should be shown? (Particularly if every single witness to every single incident always says the same thing: "I'm just thankful to God because I wasn't hurt." Don't you think anyone ever says anything else? Or are these comments just not aired because they don't fit the image the network wants to put on the story?)

As for slants on news stories: we've always had them—the reporter chooses the words he/she uses. The networks choose which stories to put on the air—and which ones to cover in the first place, so that there's even a chance they'll be aired. All of these "slant" the news you received. The news services ought to be discouraged from slanting them any more than that—but consumers (the audience) expect some sort of interpretation along with the incident: they don't want "just the facts," which, I agree, is all that ought to be reported.

Have you (everybody) asked yourself the question I put forward earlier? Did you come up with an answer—and if so, what did you think of it? I'll put it here again to remind you:

Who decides what you receive as news—what you learn—what you know?

[RavenPoe]

I agree that MSNBC is mostly centrist—and is probably the best service out there, at least as far as television goes.

Agreed!

I don't see any of the three old networks as being conservative-leaning. NBC (as opposed to MSNBC) is leftist—and I see ABC as being so as well (where did you get the impression that they were conservative?).

Ravana,

Come on now. Networks aren't only news. One look at Monday Night Football (now Sunday Night) is all one needs to determine where ABC's loyalties lie. Al Michaels and John Madden, come on. Did you think Dennis Miller was tried out for his "brilliant" comedy?

Nor do I see Fox as being as far to the right as you do. I think it only looks conservative in contrast to its rivals.


Now you've graduated to the absurd. As CK points out, when Foley was busted they ran the story all day with a D next to his name. Are we to believe that you believe that was a typo? Should we start listing their lead men?


And I do hold that the media taken as a whole—there are always exceptions—is more liberal than anything else.

That is a view from 1978. It's not true now. The news media leans to the right. What they report is dictated by their superiors who get their orders from the CEO's of the giant conglomerations that own the outlets.

Those who cannot be classified as liberal do not constitute enough weight to bring it back to the center. One must consider not only the inclinations of the individual, but also the distribution of his/her views: yes, there are conservative commentators, but when are they on? Are they the network anchors? Are they in prime time? Do they even have their own shows, or are they offset by a liberal commentator sharing the same time?


I notice Fox delivering the information as if it's all a given and they're simply repeating it. An undereducated person who only watches Fox (as they tell them to in the Moose Lodges and American Legion Clubs) would see the world through the eyes of Karl Rove.

I can't believe you lean quite this far to the right, Ravana.

[Ravana]

Come on now. Networks aren't only news. One look at Monday Night Football (now Sunday Night) is all one needs to determine where ABC's loyalties lie. Al Michaels and John Madden, come on. Did you think Dennis Miller was tried out for his "brilliant" comedy?

Al Michaels and John Madden are indicators that ABC is "conservative"? I can't remember the last time I heard either of them discussing politics... or even reporting sports news in a "conservative"—versus a "liberal"—fashion... whatever that might be. And what political alignment are you assigning Dennis Miller? (Who I found hysterical, by the way....) (Note, too, that he was not retained....)

Now you've graduated to the absurd. As CK points out, when Foley was busted they ran the story all day with a D next to his name. Are we to believe that you believe that was a typo?

Missed that one... no, I doubt it was. Are we to believe that Wolf Blitzer's crowing about "another Democratic pickup" every three minutes, alternating with "the number of seats the Democrats needed to take control" of each house, while barely mentioning Republican wins at all, was a, uhm, "speako"? If Fox is conservative, CNN has become the mouthpiece of the liberal left—as I said before, it was so biased, it made me sick, and I had to change the channel. Of course, since I don't watch Fox's so-called "news" anyway, I don't get to see most of what they do—they are, in my opinion, by far the worst news service of the lot, period, regardless of their bias.

That is a view from 1978. It's not true now. The news media leans to the right. What they report is dictated by their superiors who get their orders from the CEO's of the giant conglomerations that own the outlets.

You'll have to try harder to sell that one, Poe. The networks have always been large corporations, often owned by larger conglomerations (I prefer the term "megacorp," but that's the gamer/science fiction fan in me). There's really no change there... the "view from 1978" had us receiving our television news from only three sources, remember? How many do we have now? Even counting multiple outlets owned by the same company as single sources—not an unreasonable premise, but not a proven assumption: just look at NBC vs. MSNBC—how many "giant conglomerates" are we talking about? Three, maybe? No worse... and no change. I can't see that factoring into their political views. The politics of the owners themselves may have changed... but the fact that they all answer to CEOs of major corporations has not.

It does, however, point up my question again: who decides what you see? Assuming you're correct (that there's no meaningful difference between outlets owned by the same conglomerates), this just means that there are even fewer people making those decisions... the ones that determine what goes out on the airwaves in the first place, prior to whether the stories are spun in any particular fashion.

I notice Fox delivering the information as if it's all a given and they're simply repeating it.

As in reading from a script—or teleprompter? They all do that... the Fox talking heads are just worse at it than anyone else.

Oh, I understand what you're saying. Yes, they probably are reading official press releases more or less verbatim. And the others are doing... what? Not reading them verbatim? Spinning them, editing them, to make them sound the way their biases want them? Certainly, if Fox is the most conservative, that means that any other sort of behavior must be less conservative... right? Removing some of the "conservativeness" in whatever it is they're reporting?

I've cited examples of liberal bias previously—every election-night coverage I've seen, for instance. I could cite plenty more... the handling of the various Clinton scandals—as opposed to the handling of the ones in the Reagan/Bush and Bush II administrations, for instance. (Yes, the way the Monica Lewinsky garbage was reported heavily favored the Democratic side. If you can't see how, ask me.) The coverage afforded the Enron scandal and others doesn't exactly point toward a "pro-corporate" bias, either... unless the news networks and their owners somehow had something to gain by stabbing these people in their backs.

I think you're perception of news reporting is somewhat colored by your own bias, Poe. I'm not "that far to the right": I'm that far to the center. So "far" to the center that I can't meaningfully be placed on the scale—taken it into a third dimension, as it were. Or else turning the traditional linear bar into a circle... with myself on the opposite side of what is normally viewed as the "center." I view the reporting from all sides with suspicion: I question any story, regardless of source, and (if I'm interested enough to spend the time) look into it to find their sources, and what other people are saying... if there are any other reports available, which there often are not. I'm not arguing about whether Fox is biased, or whether Glenn Beck is conservative (duh); I'm saying that the rest of them, by and large, are not conservative... certainly not as much so as you are trying to represent them. They may have trended in that direction over the years... but that only means they're less liberal than they used to be, not that they've crossed any "dividing line" over to the other side.

The real problem I see, though, is that nobody reports the news well anymore. There are no more journalists in television news. I remember a time when, if a politician didn't answer a question, the reporter would point that fact out, not sit content with whatever drivel the politician had just spouted. But this trend started long before Bush II.... The last decent journalist I saw on TV was Christiane Amanpour... and the less I saw of her, the less I watched. Now I get my news from other sources—usually, sadly, by looking it up myself... which means that I'm often "underinformed" about what passes today for "current events." On the other hand, I know how close al-Qaeda-connected radical Islamists are to completing their takeover of Somalia... anybody reporting that story? Isn't that "news"? Or—as BBP keeps mentioning (and quite correctly so)—what's going on in Darfur? And I haven't heard any updates on the Tamil rebellion recently, either; have to go look for that when I'm done typing this. Or the Chechen one. Or the assassinations of Russian journalists and government critics. I hope television news has at least reported the entry of Romania and Bulgaria into the European Union? Yes? No?

Here's a valuable exercise: whenever you hear a story, ask yourself how it might have been reported differently—using only the facts you learned from that report. Don't go looking for any other info: just recast the words, reorder the data, perhaps leave out a thing or two... but don't add anything. Pay attention to the words used, and consider alternatives—things that are theoretically synonyms, but which don't have quite the same senses, don't produce quite the same reactions. Consider which adjectives and adverbs are put into the story... and whether they are necessary, and how they produce a slant on the story. Try it. It's one of the best ways to discover what kind of bias is being put into the story.

And do keep asking yourself—always—what it is you aren't hearing. And why.

Do me a favor: give me the script of a story from one of the networks (other than Fox)—one that you feel is conservative. I'll rewrite it a couple of different ways, and point out the biases existing in each. It'll be fun—I haven't done that in a while. I'll show you what the network writers get paid to do.

[NYG Babe 28]

I am a little late but I want to join in so I am going to.

Naughty (aka Idiots)
1. GW Bush (too many reasons to list and the casualties keep piling up)
2. T.O. for being a drama queen and cry baby
3. FOX & ABC for their biased right wing propaganda
4. Michael Richards (aka Kramer for his lack of composure at the Comedy Club)
5. Britney Spears for being the epitome of white trash and for tramautizing the world with her heinous crotch snots
6. Paris Hilton for continuing to be an ugly dumb whore
7. Rush Limabaugh (no need to explain that)
8. OJ Simpson... "If I did it" ...I mean come on!!! He is permanently on this list for getting away with murder!
9. Mel Gibson (Drunk Driving and for being a bigot)
10. Dick Cheney for shooting his friend




Nice (aka good guys/gals)
1. Gore (His efforts to get public support to fight global warming)
2. Madonna for her charitable efforts to help orphans in Africa
3. Sacha Baron Cohen (aka Borat for providing us with the funniest movie of the year)
4. All those who voted on Election Day to help bring about a change in government.
5. All the firefighters who fought the California fires again this year, and to all firefighters risking their lives to help us
6. Ok... I am running out of things
7. Me
8. Me
9. Me
10. ME... LOL

[BigBuddhaPup]

I am a little late but I want to join in so I am going to.

Naughty (aka Idiots)
1. GW Bush (too many reasons to list and the casualties keep piling up)
2. T.O. for being a drama queen and cry baby
3. FOX & ABC for their biased right wing propaganda
4. Michael Richards (aka Kramer for his lack of composure at the Comedy Club)
5. Britney Spears for being the epitome of white trash and for tramautizing the world with her heinous crotch snots
6. Paris Hilton for continuing to be an ugly dumb whore
7. Rush Limabaugh (no need to explain that)
8. OJ Simpson... "If I did it" ...I mean come on!!! He is permanently on this list for getting away with murder!
9. Mel Gibson (Drunk Driving and for being a bigot)
10. Dick Cheney for shooting his friend




Nice (aka good guys/gals)
1. Gore (His efforts to get public support to fight global warming)
2. Madonna for her charitable efforts to help orphans in Africa
3. Sacha Baron Cohen (aka Borat for providing us with the funniest movie of the year)
4. All those who voted on Election Day to help bring about a change in government.
5. All the firefighters who fought the California fires again this year, and to all firefighters risking their lives to help us
6. Ok... I am running out of things
7. Me
8. Me
9. Me
10. ME... LOL


Since I didn't really come up with anything better,and this thread got sidetracked, I proclaim that your list is the "official Nice/Naughty list for 2006"... Congratulations :D

[NYG Babe 28]

Thanks BigBuddahPup!!
I bet there are many that would disagree... as my list has a slightly liberal leanign toward it... but I think I got it wrapped up. Its amazing how much easier it is to come up with the Naughty list than it is the Nice list.

[NYG Babe 28]

Naughty List Continued....
11. Merriman (Steriods.... BAD!)
12. Chris Henry (criminal offenses... naughty naughty)
13. Heck the entire Bengals team for continuing to sign players with shady/criminal problems