O'Reilly was Olbermann's "Worst Person" runner-up for "talk show nuts" comment
On the May 22 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann named Fox News host Bill O'Reilly the "runner-up" in his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for, as Media Matters for America documented, "comparing extremists on the immigration debate to the, quote, 'talk show nuts who are telling you that they're gonna nuke Tehran,' " despite having made similar assertions. Olbermann noted: "Last December 5th, Bill-O said, '[W]e may have to' 'level cities like Tehran, kill hundreds of thousands of people. A year ago, January, Bill-O said, '[I]t's a matter of time before the United States of America and Great Britain will have to bomb the country of Iran.' "
As Media Matters has documented (here, here, and here), O'Reilly is a frequent "Worst Person" honoree. He was recently crowned "Worst Person" for suggesting that philanthropist George Soros funded an Indiana University study, which found that O'Reilly engaged in name-calling once every 6.8 seconds during the "Talking Points Memo" segment of his show.
From the May 22 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: Runner-up: Bill-O, comparing extremists on the immigration debate to the, quote, "talk show nuts who are telling you that they're gonna nuke Tehran." Last December 5th, Bill-O said, "[W]e may have to" "level cities like Tehran, kill hundreds of thousands of people." A year ago, January, Bill-O said, "[I]t's a matter of time before the United States of America and Great Britain will have to bomb the country of Iran." Hmm, "talk show nuts who are telling you that they're gonna nuke Tehran" -- first time I've ever agreed with you, Billy.
Another post by Media Matters pointing out that Olbermann is a far left liberal who hates conservatives, and MSNBC is as liberally biased as ever. Way to go Media Matters for pointing out the liberal bias in the media!
Yeah, the media is soooooooooooooo liberal.
Michael Savage broadcasts his hate propaganda to 370 radio stations.
Meanwhile, liberals like Mike Malloy are only allowed to broadcast on 12.The "liberal media" is just a myth; Olbermann is in a media minority.
"Meanwhile, liberals like Mike Malloy are only allowed to broadcast on 12"
Allowed to? Or only is broadcast on 12 because his ratings are so low that no other radio stations want to broadcast his show? Why would any radio station want to broadcast a show that nobody wants to listen to? The free market dictates whether or not a radio station wants to broadcast a certain radio show, and liberal talk radio has been an abysmal failure because virtually no one wants to listen to them.
Let's see...in a country that is roughly split in half along political lines, the "market" dictates that 90% of the radio talk shows are conservative? Riiiiiiight.
I doubt that 10% of the politial talk radio is progressive. The radical right has made sure that Wisconsin's airwaves are 99% right wing, even though the majority of the population is lefty. I love the slogans that the stations here use like, "giving you the 'Other' side of the story." I have yet to figure out where to go to get the first side.
I guess I was being cautiously optimistic. I live in a Southern Metropolitan area. It's a Red state, but we have a Democratic Governor, and a slight Democratic majority in the State House. Yet, we have no liberal talk radio. The two local talk stations are wall-to-wall conservative. I think true market forces have little to do with Conservative domination of talk radio...it certainly has NOTHING to do with the quality of programming.
Nerzog,
Do you think conservative talk radio is a money loser or a money winner for their radio stations?
Both.
(Depending on which host...)
Which conservative hosts currently on air are money losers in their markets?
According to "Talkers" magazine, Glenn Beck gets fewer ratings than even Randi Rhodes.
Please provide the link showing their recent ratings. Do they compete against each other? If not, who are they competing against?
Actually, no need. Beck ranks tied for 6th with nearly 4 million....Rhodes is tied for 13th with 1.25 million. This is from Talkers Mag - Fall 2006. The top liberal is Ed Schultz at 3 million. There are 14 or so conservatives talkers ahead of him,
Just as I thought, conservative radio dominates liberal, therefore it is by and large a money maker for their syndicators -meaning it is very much market driven.
I'm sure most of them make money, since they were injected into a virtual market vacuum during the 90s. I think "market driven" is not quite accurate... "market accepted" is more like it. There was no demand for talk radio before it was introduced, but once it came along, investors realized the opportunity. Since the first big success, Rush Limbaugh, was conservative, they simply followed suit. If the same money and effort had been put into Liberal Talk early on, the landscape would be totally different.
Nerzog,
Your refusal to admit that conservative radio is far more popular than liberal radio is astounding. And I say, so what if it is? Conservatives have tapped into a segment of the population that listens to radio, apparently liberals opt for other forms of the media, again, so what?
Does that mean that conservative talkers are right and liberals are wrong? No. It just means that are more popular with their audiences.
It's not a big deal, but to continue to deny the reality is pointless.
I don't deny it at all. However, I do not think that we got there through head-to-head competition. Conservative talk radio hit the market first and flooded the market before Liberal Talk radio even got off the ground. I think the case can be made that a lot of this success came from an infusion of money from sources pushing an ideology, and not just investors seeking profit. Can I prove it? No, but it's clear that liberal talk radio is facing an uphill battle in most markets because conservative talk is already well established, and they naturally resist the liberal incursion. In our own market, the one liberal host was driven off of the air by hate mail which I doubt was spontaneously generated.
The only reason I bring it up at all is because Conservative posters point to the present market disparity as if it indicates the inherent superiority of conservative talk radio, which is nonsense.
Nerzog, CNN hit the ground first and was the market dominant force for years before Fox News came in and toppled it in the ratings. So that theory of who's first is irrelevant.
beck's site lists 256 affiliates, schultz has around 100. yet beck only has 750,000 more listeners than schultz.
Tommy, things aren't as simple as you seem to think. Check this out:
[link to www.fair.org]
I have a theory.
Could it be that a large portion of the conservatives movement enjoys talking points and being told how to think about the important issues of our times? It's much easier to be a "ditto head" then to be a free thinker or to actually read about something and decide for yourself.
It's funny (and anecdotal), but when I run across people that listen or watch the likes of BOR or Rush they tend to be very un-informed about the issues of our times and cannot discuss them with any depth.
Tommy as much as I disagree with you on a number of things I do not put you, Jeter2 and some of the other random conservatives on this site in that group. You seem like your more informed and I highly doubt that you get most of your information from talk radio or TV.
The biggest danger that I see from these shows are how they narrow a persons perspective on an issue and you have to admit that they seem like they're designed to ruin civil discourse and divide the country.
MHK,
I am not talking about their worthiness, we are speaking of their viability in the marketplace. I am sure some people listen to Rush and others for three hours a day, turn off the radio and think they know everything and have every answer.......one can't control what these people think or how they form their opinions.
Best way to combat it is to support programming any which way you feel appropriate that counters what they say, and support and vote for political candidates which you believe in.
There may be something to that. I also think conservative listeners are more likely to flood the station with hate mail and complaint calls when they hear a "liberal" on the radio.
It's SO easy to dominate a market when there is little competition. Sure, most conservative broadcasters have more listeners, they're on the bigger radio stations, that have a bigger and stronger signal, better marketing, etc. Heck, they won't even let Air America talkers to have their shows on armed service radio — just the conservative puppets.
Since you found Fall 2006 data, I offer you this about Olberman's ratings which came out last week:
“Countdown with Keith Olbermann” (7 - 8 p.m. CST) continues its ratings surge, up 81 percent in total viewers (818,000 v. 452,000) and an increase of 73 percent in the demo (292,000 v. 169,000) over a year ago. “Countdown” maintained its lead over CNN, with a 9 percent advantage in total viewers and a 7 percent advantage in the demo. CNN delivered 749,000 total viewers and 273,000 in the demo for the month.
I'm sure that FOX's O'Reilly is posting better numbers, but I'm willing to bet that O'Reilly's numbers are declining or at least stagnating.
I think that was a pretty reasonable post. I largely agree.
Conservative talk radio is popular because they like to walk in lock step, and so hearing a common message, repeated over and over again, is comforting.
Liberals, on the other hand, are liberal, and so allow differences of opinion.
There is not "one" way to be a liberal, and so there is not one liberal viewpoint that resonates with all other liberals.
That simple fact explains why right wing talk radio works well and liberal talk radio does not.
You're just admitting that the media was liberal before the conservative talkers came along, which it was. Hence the "vacuum".
I admitted no such thing; there was no political talk radio to speak of before Rush, hence the vacuum.
Try again.
Plenty of money and effort was dumped into Air America and it's a failure.
According to Beck's web site, he is on 230 stations. According to Ed Schultz's web site, he is on over 100 stations. (Talking Radio states that Randi Rhodes is now number one with 23 fewer stations) The number of stations should be included when comparing the numbers of listeners.
Many things need to be taken into account, besides one set of numbers. I don't think that movie "popularity" should be based on sales as they are in many movie ratings. When a film opens in 6 cities nationwide, and has sold out theaters, you can't say they are a failure because they were compared to a movie which was shown worldwide, in dozens of cities with so-so crowds.
And don't forget to talk about the affect of market locations. Talking Radio's April 22,2007 quarterly ratings show that Randi Rhodes took over first place from Schultz, but she has 23 fewer stations. The advantage she has is that she is live in New York and LA. Ed is heard only part time in LA, and often preempted by sportscasts.
If conservatives own the majority of the stations, how does this affect marketing, and ratings? There are states that are primarily Democratic, and yet they have no progressive stations in the state. I can't move my a.m. radio dial without hitting a conservative talk show. In fact we no longer have a progressive station.
I read an editorial comment recently (sorry, I have forgotten where I read this), that in Ohio, where the progressive radios stations were turned into sports stations.....a few of the conservative station ratings were failing miserably, yet the station owners refused to change because the station owners didn't want those areas to lose coverage of Limbaugh, Beck, etc.
- it certainly has NOTHING to do with the quality of programming. - nerzog
It has everything to do with quality...as proven by the flop of the all-star cast on air america.
When liberals bring a format that resonates with the listerners...they will be provided a forum...that's how it works.
Your error is equating quality with what "resonates with the listeners". Classic example of the Argumentum ad Populum logical fallacy.
Sorry...I've listened to local conservative talk radio...lame is too kind to describe it. All they do is regurgitate the same GOP talking points that Limbaugh does, only a day later. It is no better inherently than Liberal talk radio. It just has more rich sugardaddies willing to put up the money for it.
"Sorry...I've listened to local conservative talk radio...lame is too kind to describe it"
Sorry, but that's simply your opinion. The large number of people who listen to the conservative talk shows disagree. The free market dictates which radio hosts are on the radio stations. If there was a demand for liberal talk show hosts, then radio stations wouldn't hesitate to put them on. They're all about making money.
All it proves is that conservatives have way too much time on their hands that they're addicted to right wing radio talk shows during the day. Personally, I wouldn't be interested in listening to a so-called "liberal" radio talk show. With some exceptions, such as perhaps NPR, radio appears to be the territory more likely frequented by extremists spouting extremist views.
White Hunter
If market dictates it you might as well lump "The Jerry Springer Show" in with your lot.
"The free market dictates which radio hosts are on the radio stations." --rino hunter
I am not so sure I agree with the premise that it is a "free-market". It appears to be more of an oligopoly. It is a perversion of the free-market.
So if it's the free market, then the "liberal media" means that most of america is liberal, right?
you can't have it both ways.
Excellent point. They would have us believe that talk radio tycoons are totally driven by the free market, yet the TV network executives ignore the same market forces to promote their "liberal" agenda? Michael Medved has tried to float this same logic concerning Hollywood. He actually said that Hollywood moguls only care about money, yet make unprofitable R rated movies to promote their "Hollywood values".
So, which is it?
Maybe IF the regular media was liberal. Since they are NOT your premise is flawed and YOU HAVE NO POINT.
I think you might have me confused with another kevin.
You are right my mistake.
And yet there was a DEMAND for Donahue, who had the highest rated program on his network and he was fired. You can keep SAYING that its all about ratings but it doesnt jive with the facts. I remember the Kwitney report not ONLY did it get good ratings for PBS but it won the POLK award and was cancelled the very next year. It couldnt get advertising. After doing stories that put American corporations in a bad light the advertising dollars dried up. DESPITE the fact Kwitney had a reputation as a world class investigative reporter after years reporting for the Wall Street Journal, DESPITE the obvious quality of the program and good viewers. It is NOT just about viewers its about ADVERTISING which is predominitly business dominated and the business community is predominitly CONSERVATIVE at least in economic and foriegn policy avenues.
Nerzog, For the umpeenth time, rich sugar-daddies don't get rich by bankrolling losing enterprises.......they make money because their advertisers want big audiences, it's not hard.
Rich sugrdaddies also want a government that leans in their direction. Conservative talk radio helps that happen. Do you know for a fact that all conservative talk radio is profitable? If so, is it profitable because it is inherently better, or because it's the only game in town?
Are radio station owners more likely to be liberal or conservative? Who makes the final decision on programming?
I am not talking about ownership....the programmers make the determination based on profitability. There isn't just one big fat sugar-daddy sitting in some cushy office who owns this station demanding conervative talk dominate so he can have a leg up with Washington.
It's more like hundreds of stockholders who dictate to the board of directors that they expect their profits maximized, so it's the management of the stations responsibility to put on programming that garners the largest audience so they can charge the highest ad revenues.
Money trumps ideology. Of course the rich want political influence, but it's far easier to support causes, lobby Congress and contribute to political campaigns to achieve their goals, than risk losing money with one of their business ventures by propping up low rated programming.
You don't think programmers answer to someone? I would be interested to know how many of these stations are publicly held.
Of course they make money; if the only talk station in town is conservative, the sponsors will buy time on it. If liberal talk hosts are driven off the air by hate mail, is that the "free market" at work, or intimidation of the market by a few vocal ideologues?
The biggie, Clear Channel, appears to be in the process of going private.
That's 1100 stations all under one owner.
Long live the unrestricted free market, eh?
The programmers answer to the public. It's pretty simple.
Who are these liberals that have been "driven off the air by hate mail...?"
Donahue was driven off the air because of FEAR of a rightwing backlash.
Proof? None? Thats what I thought. Moving on....
I'm talking about the local level. I know it happened in our market, no doubt it has happened in others.
Conservative radio is all about easy politics. No need to read or actually get information from multiple sources, just repeat the GOP talking points of the day and you too can be "informed" about politics. It's popular because people are lazy and these shows are designed to make people feel good about what they're doing and placing the blame squarely on other people.
Rush calls his listeners "ditto heads" which isn't exactly a compliment for most people.
HERE is where your logic breaks down. You assume that EACH business is the only one the tycoon thinks about. Yet he might be willing to lose money on THIS enterprise if it helps make money on his OTHER enterprises. IF spreading propaganda about Iraq helps his stock in Halliburton or NOT talking about his corporations ties to death squads in Guatemala help keep unions out and wages down in his subsidiary in Guatemala City, it is STILL an overall plus for him.
The country is split in half between Republicans and Democrats, but not between conservatives and liberals. Exit polls showed that in the 2006 elections, 32% of voters identified themselves as conservatives while 16% identified themselves as liberals. Most Democrats in the U.S. are much more moderate than the far left liberals on the radio. Also, conservatives like Rush and Hannity have better business and broadcasting skills. It's more than just conservative vs. liberal, although that is part of it as well. But Rush also provides a very entertaining program that makes people laugh. This differs from the liberal hosts who base their shows off of anger and hate.
The MSM has always had a Liberal slant.
Conservative radio took off [esp in the 90's] as an alternative to this very MSM bias.
IF there was truly a Conservative bias in the MSM, MMFA would have 50 threads or more a day here dealing with it.
Instead many of their threads deal with Conservative radio, politicians, pundits...all who naturally would lean to the Right. Hardly a shocker!
Basically I see the media in general at about 50/50 in the way they lean.
MMFA points out one side. Because they are biased.
Good point. Look how many threads here actually deal with media conservative misinformation as opposed to some radio or TV shock jock's big mouth.
I agree. The "Liberal media" tag dates back to pre-cable, pre-talk radio and pre-internet when the print media and TV News were overwhelmingly liberal. It has changed, certainly, in the past 15 years.
And now that "vacuum" needs filling by the Fairness Doctrine.
Thats baloney. I have been VERY political for many years and the media print and network were NEVER liberal. My point of view was NEVER pushed by the mainstream press this is just a lie you conservatives like to tell yourselves because they werent slavish in pushing the rightwing message with total conformity. Take 20 years ago. The big story was Nicaragua even the NYTimes was pushing the Raygun memes about them, outright lies quite often. I read two newspapers every day back then and one of them the LATimes was TOTAL conformity to the Raygun message. The San Bernardion Sun at least at the end of an article that mostly parroted the administration line would at least give a paragraph about what Americas Watch or Amnesty International was saying. I read about the elections in Nicaragua once then watched as they dissapeared so quickly from the media that one of my good friends a smart guy but very conservative swore to me they never happened. It is a LIE that the media was liberal it was NEVER liberal
"My point of view was NEVER pushed by the mainstream press"
Your point of view is even to the left of the Democratic Party, so you wouldn't expect to see a quasi-socialist view in the media. It's also amazing that you deny that the print press is liberal. 90% of journalists are registered Democrats. How could they not have a left wing bias? The New York Times and the Washington Post are both blatantly liberal newspapers. Even their straight news reporting is unbelievably biased to the left. I live in Kansas, and even the Kansas City Star and the Wichita Eagle both lean left. Even most newspapers in solidly red states are liberal. The left has a clear advantage in the print press, just as the right as a clear advantage on talk radio.
What makes me a quasi socialist? I think you are a quasi furry animal molester. Second true I am to the left of the Democratic party that makes me a LIBERAL as in LIBERAL bias. I know a whole lot of liberals and have mixed with them for a long time I dont speak for them but am not out of the mainstream in liberal thought. What keeps democrats (actually a study that was more comprehensive showed that journalists overall are more liberal on social issues and more conservative on economic issues which is what you would expect) from being biased is a little thing called journalistic integrity. I know why you wouldnt have heard of it since it is so rare on the right. Even Tucker Carlson admitted that liberal journalists consider themselves journalists first and conservative journalists consider themselves conservatives first. I could go into how that works but this isnt the place.
Your contention that the NYTimes and Washington Post are liberally biased is unsupportable. Lets remember the runup to the war where was their liberal crusading then, the Downing street memo? The NYTimes forbade one of the COLUMNISTS, Paul Krugman from calling Bush a liar whether he could back it up or not. YOU are not a moderate and NOT conforming to the rightwing message without deviation is NOT the definition of liberal.
"IF there was truly a Conservative bias in the MSM, MMFA would have 50 threads or more a day here dealing with it." --jeter
Will the logical fallacies ever stop? Not you too, Jeter. Just because something isn't proved to be false, does not mean that it is true by default. This is an example of the Argumentum ad Ignorantium logical fallacy.
Jeter's assessment sounds perfectly reasonable and logical.
That is your opinion. However, it doesn't refute my point. It is still a logical fallacy.
If you were running this website as it's stated mission says, to expose and monitor conservative misinformation - which would bolster your case more? Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh spewing some personal offensive slur at someone else, or a mainstream media outlet putting forth real misinformation which manipulates and distorts the facts?
I would hope the latter, which begs the question > why the obsession with these pundits and opinionated, right wing media hosts? Their opinions are their own, everybody knows that.
"If you were running this website as it's stated mission says, to expose and monitor conservative misinformation - which would bolster your case more? Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh spewing some personal offensive slur at someone else, or a mainstream media outlet putting forth real misinformation which manipulates and distorts the facts?" --tommy
This is yet another version of the Argumentum ad Ignorantium logical fallacy. You are arguing from personal belief. Because you seem to feel MMFA should believe the same way you do about the priority of exposing conservative misinformation based upon the source. MMFA may not approach it the same way and that doesn't make MMFA wrong either.
If you feel it's more important to highlight everytime Michael Savage calls a liberal a nazi, as opposed to substantive real misinformation, then by all means, that's your business.
highlight everytime Michael Savage calls a liberal a nazi, as opposed to substantive real misinformation, then by all means, that's your business....by Tommy
Great minds think alike [see my post below]
Too funny we both thought of Savage ;-)
I saw the same thing, damn, you beat me by 5 seconds!
But we have both been accused of a strawman - which is liberal doublespeak for "no argument".
Thank you. Now the strawman cometh!
I thought it was an illogical fallacy or an Argumentatatat ad Ignoramamama???
Thank you. I was beginning to wonder when the Argumentum ad Hominem logical fallacy was going to show up.
Idiots and pundits are welcome to their opinions; and are quite free to express those opinions to any who are similarly disadvantaged, thus, willing to listen. The problem is, that insofar as idiots and pundits using the media to extend the reach of those opinions, not only is that objectionable on its face, but there is a clear "pattern" - a clear Repugnant "pattern" - to the MO and to the crimes themselves. In isolation, each such opinion is (while offensive) simply that idiot's or pundit's opinion, and worth exactly what it costs; as a torrent of overlapping expressions, this pattern displays the crime, and is objectionable.
Now, if we had a mob of liberal spokespersons trumpeting the need to start assassinating five of the SC Justices, or the denizens of the DOJ, I would be just as loud in opposition to them; but, we don't. We don't seem to be able to assemble a mob of liberals, much less of liberal spokespersons. Perhaps the very nature of the beast (liberalism) thwarts that assemblage, or thwarts whatever magic the hate-wingers apply to turn a crowd into a mob.
Open_Mind,
MMFA monitors TV, radio, newspapers, magazines & the internet for Conservative MIS-information.
This, I'll assume begins from early morning till well into the evening.
Now of course they may not catch everything...but IF the MSM has a Conservative bias[as many of you claim here], well where is it all? Yes I'd expect at least 50 threads or more. The fact is, the media bias-- Left or Right is about even. Years ago it was Liberal. That's why Conservative radio became so popular...people were searching for an alternative.
My point is that just because MMFA points out that Conservatives have a Conservative bias is hardly Breaking News. Liberals have a Liberal Bias. It all evens out.
MMFA brings you only half of what's being said in the news. The side they see as biased. There is another side that Conservatives see as Liberal bias.
Now MMFA also points out what they perceive to be Conservative bias/misinformation in the MSM. But it appears that many of their threads here are not MSM, but of Conservative radio/TV personalities and others who hardly hide their ideology.
Highlighting Savage calling yet someone else a Nazi hardly proves there is a Conservative Bias in the MSM. It just shows what a clown Savage is.
"Now MMFA also points out what they perceive to be Conservative bias/misinformation in the MSM. But it appears that many of their threads here are not MSM, but of Conservative radio/TV personalities and others who hardly hide their ideology.
Highlighting Savage calling yet someone else a Nazi hardly proves there is a Conservative Bias in the MSM. It just shows what a clown Savage is." --jeter
Where does MMFA claim to "prove there is a Conservative Bias in the MSM"?
I am sorry, but I cannot agree with what appears to be a fundamental misrepresentation of MMFA's mission. That may be your interpretation, but it isn't mine. We need to agree on the premise before I can follow the rest of your argument.
Where does MMFA claim to "prove there is a Conservative Bias in the MSM"?
Prove was the wrong word. I should have written: Highlighting Savage calling yet someone else a Nazi hardly constitutes a Conservative Bias in the MSM.
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
As far as whether MMFA monitors the MSM for bias...I would figure the *US Media* included the MSM.
I think I see a more substantial difference between us than what you just pointed out. I do not equate "bias" with "misinformation" as it appears you are doing.
In my view MMFA does not address bias directly. It is often inferred by the posters here, but MMFA does not make any explicit claims as to bias.
Maybe you have an example I am missing where MMFA claims that one of the subjects of their article has a "bias" or "is biased". I haven't seen it.
I went through your posts and substituted "conservative misinformation" where you used the word "bias" in order to understand your argument a little better.
I think there are a lot of assumptions being made in order to make your point. Many of them are pretty fundamental. I have no idea how MMFA operates internally. I don't care. It is simply false to assume that because MMFA does not comment on something, it must not be conservative misinformation. Such a position is not logically consistent. I cannot agree with it on any level.
Hey Open_mind,
While MMFA does not come straight out and use the word BIAS, I do believe they infer it with many of their headlines
One example:
Politico article on White House-Senate immigration agreement quoted only Republicans
That's how I read it anyway.
It's true The Conservative Biased Media charge typically comes from posters here, but even if MMFA doesn't spell it out, I do believe they certainly are conveying that opinion with this site.
I think you are confusing the difference between "infer" and "imply" --not to be a grammar nazi or anything like that.
I think some posters here may believe what you say that MMFA is making an implication of sorts. I tend to be a bit more literal in my interpretations. I view that as a kind of mindreading. The way I read MMFA articles, it seems through the use of their words, they deliberately and wisely go out of their way to avoid precisely that kind of argument.
As it seems largely a matter of opinion, we can agree to disagree.
Good catch Open_Mind...I did mean "imply", sometimes my brain gets tangled up trying to post here when I'm supposed to be working.
I guess this is one of those times we'll have to agree to disagree, but as always we do so civilly.
Catch ya on another thread :-)
"IF there was truly a Conservative bias in the MSM, MMFA would have 50 threads or more a day here dealing with it."
This assumption does not take into account the number people MMFA have on staff and the extent that they examine the media.
Would the same standard apply to Newsbusters? I did a quick scan of the past two days and they have about 20 items on each day. They're not exactly meeting the 'Jeter' quota are they?
Thanks for proving my point Pete.
I wrote that BIAS in the media, whether Left or Right, was pretty even. Since neither Newsbusters or MMFA can come up with 50 or more threads proves that.
If bias in the MSM were skewed one way more than the other, it would be apparent. It isn't.
You get one side here...not the whole picture.
Your point is still an empty one, since you're simply taking into account the data of only two media watchdogs in a veritable sea of organizations, websites and blogs that do the same thing. In addition, Newsbusters could have twice the staff that MMFA has, or vice versa. Unless I missed it, there is no comprehensive, non-partisan assessment that media bias either favors one side or is even.
"Unless I missed it, there is no comprehensive, non-partisan assessment that media bias either favors one side or is even." --pete
There have been flawed attempts at doing that by many groups. The problem is that the data is not really measurable. Every bias study is based ultimately on some subjective premise. Looking for bias is really a giant a waste of time, because those who engage in it cannot seem to seperate their own bias and and usually find ways to project it into the study.
MMFA does the right thing by not addressing people's intent (bias), but their misinformation, which can be demonstrated. Of course MMFA sometimes highlights silly opinions, but they still avoid claims of "bias" at the same time.
I'll bet that if you collect contributions from Tommy and Bruce1, and a few other of the frequent posters here, that donation would enable MMFA to enlarge their coverage - reaching easily 50 per day if the money is right.
(Yeah, I already did my donation cycle for now, so don't count my $20.00 until July or thereabouts.)
More baseless nonsense from Rhino. If liberals base their shows off of anger and hate then conservatives base theirs on ignorance brainwashing, stupidity and hatemongering
Okay, now I see it:
"free market" + "abysmal failure" = conservative talking point to be ignored.
Do YOU honestly believe the American people would rather hear a genocidal wannabe dictator like Savage, instead of hearing the TRUTH?'
It's all about the money, and liberal talk radio don't have that money. It's all based on President Bush and his support of keeping the people (dis)informed.
This is one of the most uninformed posts I've read here. Liberals don't have the money and it's Bush's fault?
Wow. If they put out an entertaining product that people wanted to hear they'd be on the air. It's pretty simple.
how bot laying some of that "truth"on us. I'd love to hear what your truth is.
Yeah thats why Donanhue is still on the air after becoming the highest rated show on his entire network. WAIT, he isnt.
A) Having the highest rated show on his"network" wasn't much to be proud of...especially since he's not competing with HIS OWN NETWORK.
Here's a comment ny by one of MMFA's favorite's, Keith Olberman.
"Turns out it's not all so simple. From a post by Keith Olbermann, MSNBC anchor and a man who would know, during an online Q&A:
And you are proud that so many idiots inform themselves through insidious crap like Billo, Rush, Hannity???
Now THAT'S shocking in and of itself.
Yeah love that free market as long as you get ratings you are in that is why we are still watching Donahue on MSNBC where he had the highest ratings on his network. WAIT, he is GONE, when he was there he was FORCED to have two conservative guests for every liberal guest though he could have conservative guests by themselves. Yeah its all about the free market and ratings IF YOU ARE BRAINWASHED.
Say it enough times SALON and soemone might believe you. I refer you to the above post quoting Keith Olberman on why Donahue is no more.
"The "liberal media" is just a myth"
The vast majority of the American people disagree:
http://www.zogby.com/News/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262
the may talkers magazine lists ed schultz nationwide audience as 3 million plus. and that is on far fewer stations than many of the right wing talkers.
Schultz is one of the best from the right or left. Hartmann is pretty decent as a progressive advocate, Rhodes is terrible.
IMHO
I agree that Rhodes can be a little shrill sometimes. However, she's better than most of the Right Wing Rush Parrots out there.
I strongly disagree with that. Shes as unlistenable as Hannity or Savage.
Most of the American people believe in the Rapture, too, according to polls.
There never has been a "liberal" bias in "the media."
Because "the media" includes everyone from some guy on a street corner handing out home-made pamphlets, to major news organizations. Back in the 60's and 70's, the chief accusers of "liberal bias" in the media were Accuracy In Media, who still find commies under their beds, and Nixon/Agnew. And they sure were honest and trustworthy, weren't they? (sarcasm off)
During the 1990's, any and every salicious rumor about any of the Clintons, including Chelsea Clinton, were dwelled on to no end. Real liberla bias there, right? (Again, sarcasm off)
Today, in the news media, there is a bias.
But not an idealogical one, rather a bias toward the superficial, "grab the headlines and ratings."
That's why we got hours and hours of Anna Nicole Smith or Paris Hilton, and only a few minutes (at best) on how contractors in Iraq are so corrupt they stink on ice.
"Most of the American people believe in the Rapture, too, according to polls"
As well they should. And if you don't believe it you'll be one the people left behind.
It's been 2000+ years, Rino. Jesus AIN'T coming back, like he said he would during the lifetimes of some of his apostles.
Not to mention the fact this "Rapture" is a wild-a** fantasy cooked up in the 19th century by fundys who were scared silly of a changing world.
really rino, get over that stuff mommy told you when you were six.
I base my beliefs off of what the Bible says, not anything that anybody has told me. As a Christian I believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. You can't pick and choose what you want to believe out of the Bible. You either believe all of it or none of it. I choose to believe all of it.
Too bad God didn't know about Pi.
Glad to hear it Rino! Now, its time to love the sinner and hate the sin, to take care of the least among us, render unto Caeser what is Caeser's and give up all of your worldly good and follow Christ, right? I also assume you believe in all of the Commandments and look down on people who kill, right? I realize the New Testament is far different than the Old, but that is where the notions of peace and justice come from (to me, anyway)
"Now, its time to love the sinner and hate the sin"
That's exactly what I believe as well. Homosexuality is a good example. The Bible clearly states that it is a sin, and I believe that and I hate that sin. But I also believe that we should show love and compassion to homosexuals themselves and show them what the love of Christ is all about.
"to take care of the least among us"
Absolutely. I believe that each individual person should strive to help the poor. I've personally been on a mission trip to Mexico and worked all day and helped the poor. I also believe that we can help the poor more effectively through charities, churches, and individual compassion rather than a large and intrusive federal government.
"render unto Caeser what is Caeser's"
Yes. Everybody should pay taxes. It's how you contribute to society and help your country. The government couldn't function without taxes.
"and give up all of your worldly good and follow Christ, right"
Sure. I think that individuals should give up some of their money and give it to those who are most in need. I just don't want a large and intrusive federal government to redistribute income. Jesus never advocated a strong central government either.
"I also assume you believe in all of the Commandments and look down on people who kill, right"
Right. Why wouldn't I? I look down on the terrorists who kill innocent women and children, and also all other murderers in our country and every other country.
We have more in common than I thought. I guess I believe in a government that aims to help the poor when it can and I am against almost all war (especially the one in Iraq) because of what I believe.
so you believe the earth is 6000 years ago?
Yes. As do the majority of the American people. Don't make it sound like I'm the extremist when you're in the minority on this issue.
I disagree with such a literal interpretation but I'd never denigrate your faith or tell you to "grow up."
That's the kind of intellectual elitism that some on the left display but it just makes them look like haters.
Thank you, Mr. Strawman.
And repeating that kind of rightwing talking point makes you look like a moron
And calling someone a moron makes you look like you always have to resort to personal attacks and can't debate us on the issues.
you are clueless if you think the world is 6000 years old you have no concept of science. it doesn't matter who agrees or disagrees.
Let me translate from wingnutese. WWAAHHHH its ok to call lefties haters and intellectual elitists God gave us the exclusive franchise on personal attacks but its mean for you lefties to return serve. WWAAAHHH only WE get to call names WWAAAHHHH. I take you apart when you actually try to make a point all the time, saying I can ONLY call names and not make an argument is ludicrous and you know it is. Calling names is something ELSE I do almost always in response to rightwing namecalling but please continue to snivel that we treat you guys the way YOU treat us it is very amusing
Personal attacks are simply another form of logical fallacy (ad Hominem). Considering your frequent blatant disregard for using them, I am puzzled by your recent offense at their use against one of your own? Methinks thou doth protest too much.
Have you heard of the Golden Rule? The Law of Reciprocity?
it's not a talking point and several posters here have made my point for me.
Some people think that believing in God is stupid. That's fine, but I don't want to hear those people calling those who disagree with them "morons." That's hateful. And it smacks of intellectual elitism.
Since 90% of the people in this country believe in God, when you say they're all morons it, A) makes you look small-minded and B) it calls in to question your own intellect since maybe 10-20% of the population would actually be below average intelligence and therfore, simply from a math standpoint, all believers can't be dumb.
I have always wanted to ask a fundamentalist this:
If God commanded you to kill your own son, as he did Abraham, would you go through with it?
Another question:
Would you still love God if you found out he was making wagers about you to the devil which directly resulted in losing everything you had -your wife, kids and property -as in what God did to Job?
Another question:
Would you call child protective services on me if you found out I kicked my young children out of the house forever for eating an apple after I admonished them not to? Is that too harsh?
What's your point? Are you trying to claim that God is a harsh and evil God? Quit dancing around and just come out and say it. If you hate God, then just admit it. You're entitled to your opinion, and I won't condemn you for voicing it.
I think Open Mind's point is that the God depicted in the Old Testament is not very Godlike. He behaves more like a petty, jealous, bi-polar despot. The point is that it's not logical to assume that the creator of the Universe would behave like such a putz.
So you're basically saying that the entire Old Testament is false? Wow. It's pretty clear that you aren't Jewish, anyway.
Why didn't you answer the questions I posed? Are you afraid to share your faith? Have you never thought about those issues before?
Not all of it; just the parts where God throws temper tantrums or otherwise acts like a human tyrant. It's not so much the concept of God that I reject, just those presumptive humans who pretend to speak for Him.
And where does it LITERALLY say there will be a rapture? Thats right it doesnt, the rapture wasnt taught by ANY Christian church until some guy interpreted a few verses that way in the late 17th Century
"I base my beliefs off of what the Bible says, not anything that anybody has told me." --Rino Hunter
I don't believe that for a second. You just sprang from the womb believing everything in the Bible to be the absolute truth? No one told you it was an important book? No one said anything to you with any effect about how important the Bible is? You came to that conclusion completely independently? Of course, you ultimately rely on what someone has told you. We all do to some extent.
Hey, Rhino, can I have your car after you get raptured?
I have a pick-up, but sure you can have it. But it's a Ford, so you might not be able to handle the power!
And I'm sure the Confederate flag decal on the rear window will be impossible to remove.
Hey Chubby Robot:
In case you forgot it was the Republicans who opposed slavery and the Democrats who supported it. Just a quick history lesson to refresh your memory.
Rino, Please tell me your view of history is more nuanced than this. Do you recall what happened with the Democratic and Republican parties after the Civil Rights Act?
Yes. Democrats supported reverse discrimination policies in the form of affirmative action, and Republicans supported equality for all. I remember well.
You do? Do you remember Nixon's Southern Strategy? Do you remember the South which was almost entirely Democratic changed almost completely Republican after the Civil Rights Act? Do you remember Strom Thurmond changing parties? Do you remember any of that?
That's because the racist Dixiecrats felt more at home in the Republican party.
Do you remember Robert "Sheets" Byrd's KKK glory years? At least the Republicans don't have a former KKK member in Congress. And also, a big reason that the south started voting for Republicans is because of the abortion issue. Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, and this made many in the south angry. They turned to Republicans who opposed the decision. People in the south vote Republican because of cultural issues like abortion, gay marriage, and gun control. These things were never even issues when the Democrats had control of the South.
Actually, I think the trend started with the Civil Rights Act, and school desegregation. I know it's painful, but accept it.
So, I guess you will explain this then the voting for the 1964 Civil Rights Act (For is the first #, against the second #)
Southern Democrats 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern REPUBLICANS 0-10
Northern Democrats 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans 138-24 (85%-15)
Senate:
Southern Democrats 1-20
Southern Republicans 0-1
Northern Democrats 45-1 (98%-2%)
Northern Republicans 27-5 (85%-15%)
Seems pretty clear that the South was almost unanimously against the Civil Rights Act (Especially Southern Republicans, all of them voted against it) and a far greater percentage of Northern Republicans were against it than Northern Democrats. (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964)
In 1968, before the issues you cited, the South cast 46 electoral votes for George Wallace (former Democrat who left the party after 1964) and almost every other southern state, save Texas) went to Nixon. In 1972, the entire South went Republican.
The only election where a Democrat won the South was Carter since 1964
Thanks for pointing out that opposition to the Civil Rights Act was bi-partisan as was support for the civil rights act. Members of Congress from the north supported it and and members from the south were against it. It wasn't a Republican vs. Democrat debate. Thanks for pointing out the truth.
Looks like Rino didn't get the memo:
Mehlman was simply sucking up to the blacks there. He shouldn't have apologized for anything. If you remember MMFA had a thread about what Limbaugh said about Mehlman's remarks. Limbaugh blasted Mehlman for his remarks, so not all conservatives concede that Republicans were ever racist.
C'mon be real Raygun kicked off his Presidential run in Philedelphia Mississippi, known mostly for where the three civil right workers were murdered by the KKK in the sixties talking about states rights. Own up to the appeal to racism that even your parties top guy Mehlmen admitted. Its only the right thing to do when you are wrong admit it.
Rhino, you are right the Republicans don't have a "sheet wearer" among their ranks, they have:
12/2002 We voted for him (Thurmond) and we are proud of it. If the country has followed his lead we wouldn't have had all of these problems over the years - Trent Lott
1948 " I wanna tell you ladies and gentleman that there are not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigra race into out theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes and into our churches - Thurmond
Yeah, Byrd wore his sheets for all to see but your proud Republican party hides behind their sheets while claiming that they want everyone to have the same rights. They want no affirmative action to muddy the waters.
So lets see, you gave me Byrd and I gave you two, Thurmond and Lott and I'll raise you a Jessie Helms. Want to continue your proud Republican moments?
Affirmative Action is the opposite of fairness and equality by definition is it not?
I think if the government is willing to pay the money to bring minority and disadvantaged childrens' opportunities in education to the same level as the majority currently and historically enjoyed, then we can abolish affirmative action, which is a back-end oriented band-aid solution anyway.
Are you with me?
I'm more with you then against you OPEN.
No its not. No system of justice can be maintained without some small measures of injustice. Doing things to make up for past injustices and to make inroads into the entrenched racist advantages are the best answer there is. I have a good job one of the few left that a high school graduate can get that pays 100,000$ a year. It is much easier to get IF your father or uncle had the job. HOW do you get minorities to break into that closed rank? Are some whites getting the short end of the stick here, sure, anywhere NEAR the injustice done to blacks historically not in your wildest dreams. If YOU can think of a better way to make inroads into the entrenched avenues of privelege then lets hear it.
Everything you say may be correct but that doesn't mean that affirmative action isn't reverse racism.
That's like saying the death penalty isn't killing. Giving advantages to one group over another because of ethnicity....seems pretty clear to me.
As for a better solution for righting past wrongs maybe a better system would be to base it on income level. Give the poor more advantages but it's a tough question with no easy answer. no matter what you do someone will be treated unfairly.
You also must believe that Islam is the correct religion then since there are more of them than any of us, right?
Silly, they're just furriners, so they don't count!
lo, what does it matter whether people think there is bias, the question is, is there bias? Seems like to you, polls are only useful when they confirm something you think.
Could it be that the reason most Americans swallow the "liberal media" myth is because the GOP made a concerted, well-funded effort to plant that propaganda in the public consciousness? Ask Rich Bond.
Can you post without basing your premise on a logical fallacy?
Can you ever make a post without sounding like a philosphy professor?
I'll make a deal with you. Try injecting some real logic into your arguments and I will stop pointing out the logical flaws that should be obvious to you.
Doesnt make it true, THAT logical fallacy is called argumentum ad populum
Is BO a hypocrit or not?
Are you saying that BO did't say those very words?
Nothing new.
Divert, distract, put the prosecution on trial.
S.S.D.D.
There once was a hunter named Rino
Bitter as a sunburnt albino
He screams “liberal bias!”
With a fervor so pious
Why spell ‘Rhino’ that way? We don’t know
"Why spell ‘Rhino’ that way? We don’t know"
RINO stands for Republican In Name Only. It means that I want to weed the liberals out of the Republican Party. I'm not talking about pro-choice moderates or anything like that. I'm just talking about Republicans like Lincoln Chafee who have views which align more closely with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party.
Well, now we know. :-)
By all means, weed them out. We wouldn't want any thinking people to dilute the regressive wackery of the New GOP.
Rino,
Tell us more about you. You seem to cite opinion polls for your judgments on the media, but if you poll those same people, they will tell you the war in Iraq is not worth it. Opinions on something that can be quantified (more or less, its not an exact science with media bias) don't seem to make much sense, but the polls about a war still in the process would seem to relate better. Example of what I mean: 59% of people could say the sky is green, but that does not mean that it is.
I assume, since you are a true conservative, that you have served our country in some way and not relied on the government for anything other than protection. How have you served our great country? You also seem to be a Christian, but not too into the ideals that Christ espoused. Do you turn the other cheek? Do you dedicate at least part of your life to service to the poor? You seem to be very much into the free market and against government spending. What do you do for the least among us? Do you believe Jesus was a conservative person? Do you do your best to spread love and acceptance like He did?
Are you an attorney? Have you ever studied the law beyond the First Amendment which you seem to support if it means keeping people with radical views on the air despite what their sponsors want. This is the disconnect I have seen with your posts. You seem to think this site is the "thought police," but you told me in another post that writing the sponsors of these shows is "legal censorship." I don't think the goal, when campaigns are urged, is to shut anyone down, but rather present to the sponsors what their money is supporting. Why do you see it in another way?
"How have you served our great country"
I pay my taxes. That's the main way that we all serve our country.
"You also seem to be a Christian, but not too into the ideals that Christ espoused. Do you turn the other cheek"
Absolutely. I've never been in a fight in my life. Christ meant for each individual to turn the other cheek. Nowhere did he say anything about government policy regarding other countries.
"Do you dedicate at least part of your life to service to the poor"
I went on a mission trip to Mexico a few years ago and helped out the poor there. I also recently donated money to the invisible children fund.
"What do you do for the least among us"
See comment above.
"Do you believe Jesus was a conservative person"
Jesus wasn't a conservative or a liberal, and neither is God. Helping the poor isn't a "liberal" idea. Conservatives simply believe that we can help the poor more effectively through charities, churches, and individual compassion rather than a large and intrusive federal government.
"Do you do your best to spread love and acceptance like He did"
Certainly. I believe in the phrase "hate the sin, love the sinner." That's what Christ did. He reached out to prostitutes, tax collectors, etc. even though he disagreed with their actions. We should certainly show love to everybody.
I am not sure that paying taxes is enough when there is a war that many support, but few fight (Iraq). I believe we should be sacrificing. I am torn about joining the military (at 31) for the War on Terror and am convinced if I joined I would be sent to where there (in my opinion) is a totally unrelated conflict. I don't believe in sending people to fight a war that I would not step up to myself. I also believe that the troops are been terribly neglected by this administration and fight for them every chance I get.
Peace.
A step in the right direction would be a War Tax assessed on everyone who voted for Puddinhead George. $10,000 each would be a good down payment.
And do you kill them when you find them, as many hunters do to animals. Or are you more of a conservationist like the Crocodile Hunter?
I simply expose their true agenda and point out the truth about how they're actually trying to bring down the Republican Party.
TTD
All that and a mindreader too.
...as if the Republican party can get any lower.
Rino Hunter, is this a Rino ?
Are you asking me if Dick Cheney is a RINO? If that's the case the answer is definetely no. Cheney is about as conservative as you can get. The fact that he still loves his daughter doesn't change anything. Cheney was right to still accept his daughter and love her no matter what.
So you can "accept" your gay daughter and be a true Republican.
What about if you just "accept" gay people in general?
We should accept everybody and love them as Christ loved us. But that doesn't mean that we should change the definition of marriage to suit their political agenda. I don't care what gays do in the privacy of their own home. I just want to preserve the institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman as it has been for the last 2000 years.
So you're saying that there is no room for anyone other than pure conservatives in the Republican Party?
What about the "big tent" they were telling us about?
The two parties have historically comprised both liberal, moderate and conservative elements. Some cities and towns have a distinct conservative and liberal/progressive party. Republican and Democratic Party candidates used to court all of the factions, left, right and center.
Is the RNC aware of the fact that you and people who think like you are trying to eliminate non-conservative members of the Republican Party?
Go back to my original post. I stated out that I don't have any problem with moderate Republicans who deviate from the Party on a few issues like abortion, gun control, global warming, etc. I simply want to get rid of the liberal Republicans like Chafee who agree more with the Dems than their own party. Also, do you support conservative Democrat Ben Nelson from Nebraska? Or do you think that a more liberal Democrat should run against him in the primaries? I've heard many on the left who don't like Nelson at all and want someone to run against him in the primaries in the next election.
But on how many issues can one deviate and still be raptured?
"RINO stands for Republican In Name Only. It means that I want to weed the liberals out of the Republican Party."
Well...I'll be darned! And here all this time I thought it was a CONFESSION!
I guess it IS possible to learn something new everyday. You ought to try it sometime.
Rino, you are a typical Regressive. Anyone that you don't agree with needs to be shouted down and destroyed. It is the Republican (Anti-Progress) way. Too bad.No run along ad get back to your job of combing L Brent Bozell's beard.
I've never seen Rhino shout down anyone. Tough to should down someone on a printed blog, though....
You're painting Rhino with the broad brush you probably use to paint all republicans. But his posts are here for all to see and your comments about him aren't supported by his statements.
Rino overall is reasonable. Then he sticks in a baseless assertion that insults liberals or stereotypes liberals and is nothing more than an endlessly repeated rightwing talking point without a shred of validity to it. Overall he is VERY conservative but not overly objectionable.
I would tend to agree. Rhino at least seems to compose his own material, unlike JamesBondKevin, who is little more than a conduit for Rush Limbaugh's rehashed anti-Clinton talking points.
E- Hull:
Rino has accused many of "hating"- without anything to substantiate that claim. That's how s/he started the posting in response to this article. There's obviously a hole lot of trolling going on here, and now the posts are completely off topic.
I don't understand why Rino posts here at all.
Keith Olbermann, in my opinion is a broadcaster with more integrity than most on cable.
Bill O'Reilley has repeatedly misinformed, lies, bullies and name calls on his broadcasts.
Olbermann points that out.
So Rino claims KO "hates" O'Reiley. When all he has is obvious disdain for O'Reiiley. And what he does his point out his own absurd and harmful statements, too numerous to post here, but well documented by MM.
I did respond to Rino's first post but it didn't make it on the thread.
I get very tired of posters taking up so much space- just to lash out. There's no real discussion. No proof of anything that has been misstated.
Why even come here?
Based on what I've been reading about Rino's beliefs- what point does s/he have in even posting here at all?
I don't see that there's any understanding of Media matters, just more knee jerk, cookie cutter,, recycled, regurgiated Republican talking points. Droning on & On in brain wash fashion so people will stop thinking for themselves.
The posting here on the Bible and Christ's teachings is typical. Anyone who truly believes in the teaching of of Jesus Christ would not be supporting the war in Iraq, the death penalty, the anti-gay smears and fears, the tax breaks to the most wealthy among us, the using religion as a tool of fear and smear, the judging of other who have different faiths, beliefs, and colors, the wall to keep poor people out on our southern borders, and on & On.
That is CLEAR.
Probably the best example of a person who practices his beliefs as a "Christan" is Jimmy Carter.
I'm thinking that Rino doesn't think well of Jimmy at all. But if Jesus were to come back and find some new disciples, Jimmy would be his main man!
The posting here on the Bible and Christ's teachings is typical. Anyone who truly believes in the teaching of of Jesus Christ would not be supporting the war in Iraq, the death penalty, the anti-gay smears and fears, the tax breaks to the most wealthy among us, the using religion as a tool of fear and smear, the judging of other who have different faiths, beliefs, and colors, the wall to keep poor people out on our southern borders, and on & On.
That is CLEAR.
These are your OPINIONs and you are entitled to them. But I don't think you'll be the new religious leader speaking for the U.S. Christian majority any time soon.
The only thing "clear" in your post is that you've decided how a "good" chrisitan must think and act, and that's how YOU think and act.
As for Jimmy Carter, Presidentially he may have been the worst ever.
As a "Christian" I'd say you're right on. Carter's got a big heart but he's woefully naive.
BTW, once again. KO is using actual quotes from Billo to make his point. If Billo doesnt want to be held accountable for what he says, then he should get off the radio and TV.
How does one equate ONE person on ONE show on ONE channel as a universal media bias? That seems an extreme over-generalization.
Because ANY deviation from total conformity to the rghtwing agenda is DEFINED as liberal.
The righties are the haters of people.
Those on the left hate behavior, not people.
Media Matters is not showing bias, unless you are alleging that the truth has a liberal bias.
It's the righties who allege bias, not Media Matters. Media Matters documents events.
Nonsense, Rino. MSNBC and Olbermann are no more 'far left' than Billo is non-partisan. You wouldn't know left if it bit your behind.
Another post by Rhino showing he is a far right nutbag with a reality gastank that is truly empty.
RH- You are either missing the point of the entire Media matters site or intentionally baiting. Why do you waste your time here?
Keith O. is by far one of the more honest journalist on cable. You may disagree with his opinions, and disagree with his worse person in the world, but it's fairly obvious to me you don't watch.
why do you come here and post statements like KO "hates". Please. Keith has disdain for ignorance. And I happen to agree with his disdain.
O'Reiley has proven his "wing nut" status over and over again.
He lies, insults, and makes his money form playing to the lowest common denominator.
If you have evidence that Media maters or Keith has distorted, change, or made up what O'Reilley has said- then I say' Put up or shut up."
(taken from an O'Reilley play book)
I don't see the misinformation. Nowhere did BO say anything about nuking Iran.
Unless all bombs are nukes or unless the only way to level a a city is through nuclear weapons then I must be missing something.
Olbermann using Billy's own word's to skewer him, Rhino never addresses that fact.
It's not Rhino, it's RINO. It's an acronym for Republicans who didn't attend Falwell's funeral or send him flowers.
Or kiss Bush's and Rove's a**.
I like Rhino better they are a stubborn animal that doesnt see well
Olbermann can bash O'Reilly all he wants. I just don't understand why Media Matters points it out all the time. It isn't "conservative misinformation" in any way. Media Matters should stick to their mission of exposing conservative misinformation. By posting Olbermann's rants they are just showing that MSNBC is a liberal network. This seems to work against their stated mission.
I am sure that Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarbourough who offer opinion shows might disagree about your characterization of MSNBC.
Carlson and Scarborough are always pretty objective on their shows. You can tell that by the fact that Media Matters hardly ever posts any "conservative misinformation" from their shows. They both criticize the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress at least as often as they criticize the Democrats. Olbermann, on the other hand, is always blatantly biased. He never attacks Democrats. Carlson and Scarborough are both ideologically conservative, but are almost always objective on their shows. MSNBC has forced them to move to the left and be more neutral.
"Carlson and Scarborough are always pretty objective on their shows. You can tell that by the fact that Media Matters hardly ever posts any "conservative misinformation" from their shows." --rino hunter
The boards are rich today with logical fallacies. Above is yet another example of the Argumentum ad Ignorantium logical fallacy. Something cannot be argued to be true simply because it has not been proven false.
It's more than a mere logical fallacy; it's an outright falsehood;
http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/tuckercarlson?f=h_hot
http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/joescarborough?sort=default&offset=15
The misinformation is there, and conservative; but we get the added bonus of Olbermann's recitation of the facts (and clips) behind his award. I know that to hate-wingers and other acolytes of this lie-master, it must seem redundant to state both "O'Reilly" and "lies a lot", but sometimes repetition is merely emphasis.
I think the last thing MMFA needs is advice from you.
MSNBC is a liberal network only in your mind dominated by complete delusion. OR by using your Atilla the Hun standard where anyone not as Conservative as Jesse Helms is a flaming liberal. Try to talk sense, its just dumb to pretend MSNBC is liberal.
Your standard is that anybody to the right of Bernie Sanders is a moderate or conservative. You think that Hillary Clinton and Alan Colmes are both moderates, so you have very little credibility on this issue. Saying that MSNBC doesn't have a liberal bias is like saying that Fox doesn't have a conservative bias. I'm objective and will admit that Fox leans right. You should be honest and at least a little bit objective and admit that MSNBC leans left.
How can you be SO wrong in such a small place. No have no such criteria. Colmes as I have shown you BEFORE when we had this discussion describes HIMSELF as a moderate. Hillary IS moderate only delusion and propaganda necessity makes you guys claim she is some ultra liberal and NO MSNBC does NOT have a liberal bias just because they have ONE somewhat liberal host. Who mostly shows his liberalism by his antipathy toward LYING and namecalling rightwing bloviators. MSNBC shows up on this site all the time Ya got nothin as usual. Here is a clue. The Earth will not become flat no matter how often you SAY its flat.
There's little need to address a point that that wasn't backed up in the first place.
If you can't see the difference between a Michael Savage,who has said we should nuke the whole area,and Bill saying we might have to bomb them then you don't want to see it.
Maybe BO is learning? or is changing his mind on the issue? And why does KO take what media matter said and just read it on air? At least do your only research. It like we can read the future if it on media matter and attacking BO, it 100% going to be on KO.
TRIO, I agree he could have changed his mind. I would respect him a lot more if he said that he did instead of marginalizing something he once believed in (and maybe still does).
Could someone direct me the website that does the same thing that MMFA does against liberals. If there isn't one doesn't that mean that the left are the ones who have the conspiracy against conservatives? Or is Vast left wing conspiracy not available for use?
Pointing out misstatements and offensive (I know that is a relative term) is "against" someone?
Many of the things on this site are taken out of context. I am not a republican or a democrat but as a former military member I do find many of the things that Rosie O'donnel and the NYtimes have said or printed very offensive and I would like to see a consolodated site that reports on the things that they say. Otherwise to me the only conspiracy, or group of people organized with the goals to be against a certain group with the objective of hurting the cause of that group, is the left and the extreme right wing, racist, and insane people who believe that murder is justified to protect what they believe to be murdered.
I think this site does well with context. I think there is a site, not as well-known called something like the Media Research Center or something. Brent Bozell, mentioned here sometimes, runs it.
Thank you, that is all I wanted to know. I do know this site is biased simply because it only reports on one side. I just like to have both sides since I know that their will never be a non-biased reporting.
I would personally like it if one site would report on all misstatements and comments that were offensive in nature, but that would take up more space than one server could ever hold.
As a former military man, aren't you offended by the things said about and done to the military by some on the right?
In a word, yes. Both parties have sold out their base to some lobbyist. Unfortunatly in a 2 party system you only have a choice to vote for the lesser of 2 evils or not vote. The third party candidates only serve to take the votes away from the other parties and end up electing a president that a third of the country supports.
My beliefs on defense make me side with the republican side because the democrat leaders publicly say things like the war is lost. That any way you size it up is aid and comfort to the enemy and even discussed in the constitution as treason. America seems to have no attention span. I was in the Med when the Cole was attacked. That was unprovoked and I saw the results of that and If America had responded to that Sept 11th would not have happened. There are lots of things that could be done by the right and left that are the reasons this war has taken as long as it has. Rules of Engagement come to mind.
The point is the politicians need to stop trying to armchair quarterback military action and the news needs to report the truth with no slant or bias. Americans who disagree with the war have every right to voice thier opinions, but burning effigies of US soldiers and slandering soldiers calling them terrorist or mercinaries is unamerican in everyway and and very dangerous to militray moral.
Iraq is very close to becoming Vietnam again, but not in the quagmire that people describe it. People like Rosie O'donnel the NY times and even the harshest on the right like Michael Savage only breed dessention when they attack the other side and AFN reports on all this and crush all sense of duty, honor, and country in the military and when it comes time to defend America again and it will be coming sooner than most people think. No one wants a demoralized military trying to defend thier country when they have been spit upon by either the right or the left.
There is no such thing as a Democrat leader there is a DemocratIC leader and there are ReNAMBLAcans
This guy demonstrates that most people have no idea what a liberal really is.
His post is full of mindless strawmen.
Stop relying on Rush Limbaugh and his ilk to tell you what a liberal is. Why don't you ask questions instead of making a fool of yourself with posts like that.
Please point out my strawmen. All of the things I have talked about are facts. Please explain to me what a liberal is. I believe that a Liberal is someone who is not limited to traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecp8ZCC3tB8
Protesting by burning effigies is not liberal and not free from bigotry. It is hateful and disgraceful. The soldiers and sailors of the US are protecting their country in what they believe in and what they are giving their lives for. You may disagree and that is fine but it is not liberal to show hate for those carrying out what they believe to be just and true cause.
I was in the Med when the Cole was attacked. That was unprovoked and I saw the results of that and If America had responded to that Sept 11th would not have happened.
What nonsense!
The USS Cole attack was not "unprovoked." It's not like those who attack the western powers have absolutely no basis for their antagonism. That does not mean that their attacks are justified in any way, but they were not "unprovoked".
It was not until the middle of December, after Bush was elected and Clinton was already in his 'hand off the power' mode that they positively identified the culprits in that explosion as Al Qaeda. Clinton made a conscious choice to not instigate attacks against Al Qaeda because he was leaving office soon. It's not that he thought an retaliatory attack was out of line. He was being polite to Bush. He assumed, incorrectly, that Bush would man-up and keep Al Qaeda front and center. Clinton tried very hard to tell Bush and his aides how important the "real" Global War on Terror really was. Bush ignored that advice, remember? Bush is the one who failed to do anything for the first 8 months he was in office, numbskull!
It is possible that had Bush reacted to the USS Cole bombing by retaliating against Al Qaeda, 9/11 would not have happened. None of that changes the fact that Bush had plenty of opportunity to do something about it, and he chose to do nothing! Clinton had one month, and made a conscious choice to leave the beginning of a new offensive against Al Qaeda to the new President. Little did he know the new President would turn out to be so damn incompetent and downright dangerous to our nation's well being.
I find that just insulting. I had 19 dead shipmates and the rest of the crew on the Cole were pretty much scarred for life. They did NOTHING to the terrorist. Bush did not do anything about the terrorist because he didn't want anything to do with the Clinton administration. That was probably one of the stupidest moves in recient history, but to say that 19 innocent sailors died due to a provoked attack simply tells me that you do not understand the state of the world.
The world hated us while Clinton was in office and even before then. Part of it is jealousy and part of it is America's percieved corruption but they have no problems accepting our charity. America is different than any other country in the world. That is the lone reason they hate us. Just like any other point in history when someone saw something they didn't understand and feared and hated it.
The Extremist muslims hate us because we are ungodly in their eyes. Homosexuality, Abortion, womens rights, seperation of church and state, the freedoms we cherish as americans they hate about us. So if you justify that as provocation then you need to wake up and maybe leave the country for alittle while and see just how the rest of the world view us and learn that it is not our fault. The freedoms of Ameica are not shared and the leaders of the world use those freedoms to justify hating us. Unfortunatly some of thier people just follow along.
MRC and newsbusters are two among many.
This topic goes way back in the thread, but I thought I should point out that Phil Donahue's show was pulled from MSNBC even though he was getting better ratings than their conservative talkers.
I'm from Houston and there is no liberal talk radio here at all. It used to be that I could get weather or traffic reports on the AM stations, but now, no matter which one I go to, there is a guy telling me how liberals are bad for America. All freakin' day long we are inundated.
I used to tune in to O'Reilly and listen to a lot of conservative talk radio because I'm curious about spin and propaganda, but since things have gone to hell for the Republicans they only want to talk about immigration issues. Oh, sometimes they talk about sports or have trivia questions for callers. I've started watching Olberman's show because it seems like the only place outside of the Internet where I can get news on the attorney hearings and other political happenings. I really don't care to hear about Paris Hilton, Anna Nicole, Britney, etc., but some days that's all they will talk about.
Well, of course he was. Olbermann gets his talking points from MMFA.
Sez Mr. Talking Points himself.
Where do you get yours?
I've wondered a bit about Obermann being here on occasion and I've decided he's about the only MSM person who takes the rest of the media to account. Not always well, but he is there. If another media figure were to do a similar thing. I think we'd be seeing this person here. The same people would be complaining about it. In a fasion his role is similar to the sites own editorialists. Don't tell him he may want to get paid for it.
we can thank our lucky stars for news people like obermann
billo is no match for keith obermann
Great point!
And the ratings back up your statement...or do they?
keith is the bomb