O'Reilly asserted "most journalists give money to Democrats" -- but study on subject refutes him
SUMMARY: On The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly stated: "[A]ll the money from the elites. We know that journalists -- most journalists give money to Democrats." However, the study O'Reilly was apparently referring to showed that of the small fraction of journalists who donated money at all to campaigns, more gave to Democrats than Republicans -- not that "most journalists give money to Democrats."
During the August 23 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, discussing a recent study by the Center for Responsive Politics that found educators donate more money to Democratic campaigns than to Republican ones, host Bill O'Reilly stated: "[A]ll the money from the elites. We know that journalists -- most journalists give money to Democrats, and now we know teachers do." In referencing donations by journalists, O'Reilly was apparently referring to an MSNBC report's finding that of the small fraction of journalists who donated money at all to campaigns, more gave to Democrats than Republicans. However, as Media Matters for America documented, the MSNBC report did not find that "most journalists give money to Democrats." Rather, it stated that the 143 journalists identified in the study as having made political contributions "are a tiny fraction of the roughly 100,000 staffers in newsrooms across the nation." In fact, the people named in the MSNBC report represent less than two-tenths of 1 percent of news staff in the United States.
The MSNBC report also noted: "Conservative-leaning journalists tended to greater generosity. Ann Stewart Banker, a producer for Bill O'Reilly at Fox News Channel, gave $5,000 to Republicans." The MSNBC study further explained that Banker's $5,000 donation was to "Volunteer PAC, which gave to Republican candidates."
During the segment, Fox News analyst Tammy Bruce asserted: "Well, it shouldn't surprise us, of course, that the academy is giving that kind of volume of money to Democrats. The only other place where there is more white, rich liberal Democrats are in the drug and alcohol rehab centers in Santa Monica [California]. So you have a sense of where the money is going to come from."
From the August 23 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Thanks for staying with us. I'm Bill O'Reilly. In the "Weekdays with Bernie and Jane" segment tonight, no Bernie. He's off. But replacing him, from Los Angeles, Fox News analyst Tammy Bruce. And of course, in Washington, Jane Hall, also a Fox News analyst.
Now, ladies, I'm going to put a chart up on the screen. A new study says 76 percent of all donations made by teachers in America, teachers, go to Democrats, and overwhelmingly in the nation's university systems, the Dems are getting the dough.
Eighty-one percent at my alma mater, Harvard, go to Democrats, of teachers' donations. William and Mary -- look at that -- 99 percent. University of Chicago, 92 percent.
[...]
O'REILLY: Now, Tammy, all the money from the elites. We know that journalists -- most journalists give money to Democrats, and now we know teachers do. At an enormous level. I mean, the disparity is just off the chart. How do you process that?
BRUCE: Well, it shouldn't surprise us, of course, that the academy is giving that kind of volume of money to Democrats. The only other place where there is more white, rich liberal Democrats are in the drug and alcohol rehab centers in Santa Monica. So you have a sense of where the money is going to come from.
The truth of the matter is, though, what's interesting is that the hypocrisy here is that the Democrats complain about the oil and gas industry supposedly influencing government, that it's unfair, and that it's this big, weird corporation that wants to undo the impact of the American people, whereas they're getting that kind of money and more from the academy and from that level of elite. And those elites don't even send the American people dividend checks every month.
O'REILLY: Yeah, but it's not really a valid comparison, Tammy, because the oil companies do have a very tremendous lobby, and they are gouging us.
BRUCE: Oh, and so does the academy.
O'REILLY: I'm on the side of Democrats here.
BRUCE: So does the academy.
O'REILLY: But -- wait, wait Jane.
HALL: Yeah, but wait a minute.
O'REILLY: Wait a minute, Jane. Tammy, the teachers can't really do much. I mean, they just --
BRUCE: Oh, yes, they do.
O'REILLY: It's all an emotional ideology. "We want this person."
BRUCE: They're control-- yes, but at the same time, they're controlling the minds of the young people sitting in those chairs.
O'REILLY: That's what it is, though. You're not -- how can you change that?
BRUCE: They're getting federal grants. They're running think tanks. They're running issue tanks, where you're -- Jane knows the dynamic of the academy. It's incredibly influential and always will be. And when it's one singular mentality, this at least exposes that --
O'REILLY: Oh, it definitely exposes it.
BRUCE: -- and it exposes the hypocrisy of the Democrats.
O'REILLY: All right, Jane, you're a teacher. What do you think?
HALL: Well, first of all, you know, when I looked way into it, the William and Mary was basically one professor. I mean, he makes more money than I do. But 99 percent of 135,000. You know, Mitt Romney got 440-something thousand, was third there. These figures are not totally clear.
I don't dispute, you know, the overall tendency in recent years. I think we've got a more polarized climate. I think there are questions about the Bush administration and funding of science and opposition to the Patriot Act, all of which are influencing this.
But professors are not writing legislation the way Wall Street, chemical companies, a lot of other industries that are heavily partisan the other way that are very organized. You know, we're not that organized in the academics.
I look at it this way, if you are employed by FOX you must give to Republicans in the form of a donation. O'Reilly, am I right or wrong?
Just working to put Fox News on the air is a donation to the GOP.
I don't think anyone with half a brain could think that is what Bill is saying. Am I right?
America, you give to any cause that you want.
I'd like to see the study showing how many democratic giving journalists were fired vs. their republican counterparts for giving donations to a political party. But we already know which group would win, don't we?
What's Billdoe's point?
The score--if accurate?--was 76 percent to 24 percent. That sounds about right. People who are well educated, who have their brains functioning, who are well-informed, as teachers tend to be ...
ARE NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THE REPUKES.
People who are dumber, who watch Fox News, who are ignorant, who don't have much education, etc., are much more liable to vote for Republicans.
What's the surprise here?
DB, you forgot corporate interests who desire to have the Repubs like puppets in office. The relative smartness or dumbness of such support for puppetry comes under the "I don't care" doctrine. As long as they get what they want, who cares how the intellectual quotents fall out.
Good point Mick..
I guess the Con party is made up of 3 segments: The corporate business community, the religious zealots and the dumb-asses.
I think that the "dumb-asses" segment tends to cross over the boundries to other segments.
There's many other sub-segments: the Pro Iraq War/kill more US troops segment, the "white people are superior" segment, the anti government segment, and the ever popular "I Hate Taxes" segment.
And they think they are the smart ones. "I'm smat, I'm not dumb, I'm smat."--Fredo Corleone.
I guess that the Democrat party should be divided into three parts: The abortionists, the big government nannies, and the terrorist sympathizing sissies. One absurd comment certainly deserves another.
There is no Democrat party, it doesnt exist only the DemocratIC party and the ReNAMBLAcan party
There's no Con Party either.
point taken. I made this post earlier I guess it didnt take
Why would someone who is intelligent and makes a lot of money want to pay higher taxes? That doesn't make any sense. And why would they want to donate to a party that cares more about protecting the rights of terrorists than protecting the American people?
HA HA HA HA HA, hee hee, ha ha, ahem. You are funny.
OMG! Ya got yer @ss handed to you on a platter yesterday with your stance on "terrorist threats" and now yer back for more? Priceless!
"I'm smaaat, Im not dumb I'm smaaat!" --Fredo Corleone / Rino Hunter
I thought he was Maxwell Smart? Where is that cone of silence when you need it?
Are you telling me he's not Maxwell Smart? Didn't he get a 66 from 99?
OK, that double entandre post was not expected. I really though I somehow screwed up the 1st time.
All you did was make the same stupid suggestion that we should leave the low scale civil war in Iraq and get into a full scale civil war in Darfur that has absolutely nothing to do with our own national security. You didn't hand me anything.
Oh, but I never made that statement. Classic con game, putting words I never said in my mouth then excoriate me for it. Too funny!
Please come back when you grow a set.
"I personally think that society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I've earned," investment genius Warren Buffet said in a television interview. "If you stick me down in the middle of Bangladesh or Peru or someplace, you'll find out how much this talent is going to produce," which is not much.
That's the difference between rich liberals and rich conservatives. Understand?
The great thing about America is we have more freedom and opportunity here than anywhere else in the world. That's what allows people to become successful, not the government. Those other countries that were mentioned don't have the same freedom and opportunity that we do, which is why it's harder to make a good living in those countries.
I read an article a year ago that said the U.S. was one the most rigid society in terms of economic class in the industrial world. If your born into poverty in the U.S., you're likely to remain in that economic class. There's a better chance of moving out of poverty in European countries.
Sounds a little bit like "They hate us for our freedoms" to me, my theory has a bit to do with an inequitable global economic system as well as you Americans having the freedom to choose whether you want a Coke or a Pepsi.
There's this little thing called the Project for a New American Century you might want to look up, there's a pretty interesting statement about the global distribution of wealth and how it ought to be maintained somewhere there...
Wino, the fact that your intellectual gurus are Hannity, Limbaugh and O'Lielly say enough about your critical thinking skills. My lord, three of your repug presidential candidates don't even believe in evolution, something even the pope can't contest on a scientific basis. The repug/conservative era will be remembered as the dark ages in America.Too bad it happened during the dawn of the 21st century. You really should be embarassed to be affilliated with this idiocracy. Oh well, stupid people are valuable members of society too.
The majority of the American people believe in biblical creation and reject evolution. Atheists like yourself are the extremists on that issue. And people like Hannity and Limbaugh would make you look extremely foolish in a debate. Their intellectual capacity greatly exceeds yours.
Hannity, Limbaugh and other like minded people may be the extremists on this issue. Their opinions are out of step with the rest of the world.
Wino, you wound me to the very quick . . . PSYCH! I am so happy to inform you of the following SO WHAT! The American people do not dictate science -- and given our performance in science in math among industrialized nations that's a good thing.
Also, for your edification, I am not an atheist, but that is a perfect example of your inability to conduct a rational argument. As a Catholic I agree 100% with the Pope on this issue, claiming evolution and scripture are diametrically opposed is an absurdity. But I suppose he's an atheist too.
And have you considered that only three of your candidates say they don't believe in evolution? That makes all the others just as atheistic as me. Smarten up or hide your ignorance so that you are not subject to justified and much deserved ridicule. Geez! . . . you guyz!
Rino Hunter, a majority of American voters want out of Iraq/and or change of course in Iraq. A majority of Americans disapprove of Bush. A majority of Americans voted for Gore in 2000. A majority of Americans voted for Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Are you going to say all of these people are/were right?
By the way, the United States isn't the most free country in the world. We allow businesses and corporations to exploit workers. We force everyone to pay for their own health care rather than have everyone pay a small percentage (WE spend THE MOST on health care). We force people to pay for college (oh yes there is universal college in many industrialized nations, even 2nd world countries). In many European countries, you automatically HAVE the FREE opportunity to get an education and move up. We force those with nothing to either pay for their own life or die.
And also, if the rich want to pay higher taxes no one is stopping them from doing so. They can just right a check to the U.S. Treasury for whatever amount they wish.
Sorry. Meant "write"
No you're not sorry for saying RIGHT instead of WRITE! Your whole mindset and brain is consumed and stuck in the far-RIGHT mode of operation. The left side of your brain is void of any reality or reasoning of thinking clearly to identify the facts.
We should just raise the income tax rate on the rich.
Care to explain why?
What's there to explain? Raise taxes on the Rich is pretty straightforward.
Yeah, it's pretty obvious that it would take money out of the economy and slow it down.
It's pretty obvious that it would put money into the economy and ramp it up and it would have the added bonus of paying down the national debt which skyrocketed under both the Reagan administration and the Bush administration.
Raising taxes takes money out of the economy because people have less to spend. That's just basic economics. You won't find an economist who agrees with your statement. It's simply factually wrong. And if Democrats raised taxes they would simply spend it on domestic welfare programs. They wouldn't try to balance the budget. Their new budget proposal that has huge spending increases is an example of that.
More delusional rightwing propaganda stated as FACT by Rhino. Here is an economist that says we need to raise taxes
http://www.newsobserver.com/690/story/419587.html
BENAVIE: The tax cuts that Bush used in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 did not jump-start the economy. It was a very weak tool because it went to rich people, and the rich people didn't spend the money, and that's what we needed to stimulate the spending.
THE N&O: So you're in charge. What is your prescription?
BENAVIE: Don't make the tax cuts permanent. That, I think, most people would agree with.
What I think we should do, and I think I can say this as an economist, is to propose raising taxes but to make very clear why we're doing it. What are we going to get? What are we going to pay for by raising these taxes? ... You have to balance any proposed tax increase and what the money is going for.
Okay. I'll concede that there are a few liberal economists who believe we should raise taxes. But I don't think that there are any objective, non-partisan economists who believe that. I don't believe that a text book has ever been written which claims that raising taxes helps the economy. And his point about Bush's tax cuts not helping the economy is simply wrong. We were in an economic slow down right after 9-11, and Bush then cut taxes and the economy sky rocketed. And you believe that was just a coincidence?
And you got your degree in economics WHERE AGAIN? You are spouting your partisan rhetoric as if they were facts, they arent, think what you want your delusions dont define reality. They never will
I have a degree in Business Administration. Economics classes were a big part of that degree. But it's not like it really matters. You just used another ad hominem attack like you always do, which is a logical fallacy. You would rather discredit me by claiming that I'm not qualified to talk about a particular subject rather than actually responding to what I actually said.
Salon,
I noticed that RINO didn't specify his degree level, maybe he has a MBA but he certainly didn't say that. I have a BS in Health Services Administration and you have to take economic, finance, and managerial courses for any business management related degree, and these ARE NOT advanced level courses. They are very basic. I can assure you that a BS leveled degree in management does not put you in position to determine which PHD level economist is correct. In any field of expertise you have to research and find out if consensus exists among the experts in the field. Now I'm not certain what that consensus is or if there currently is consensus, but I know that I wouldn’t rely on the assertion of any poster on MMFA to tell me that. There is also a new course of study of social economics which it sort of a convergence of human service and economics. Say a society agrees that certain functions are better managed or achieved by a pooling of funds these people devise the best economic systems to achieve this and I understand that often a combination of government and private sector (free markets) efforts are required. That’s probably the premise that charter schools is being based on, but the input of both government-private sector are required and I’m not certain that would happened by those who are currently advocating this. Those people seem to abhor governmental regulation and this would have to be highly regulated to ensure that the primary focus of educating children will be the measure of success and not monetary profit margins.
Cut that short to early. According to your convienient delusions. Clintons economy with the greatest peacetime expansion WAS just a coincidence. The 50's were an economic golden age despite high top rate taxes but Bush enemic recovery which has not raised the median income one whit is proof tax cuts for the rich work. Hey dont let facts get in the way of your economic/religious dogma. Think what you will just dont expect people paying attention to take your rhetoric seriously
Wages have been going up for every income level for quite some time. Your claim is false. Clinton also had a Republican Congress to work with for 6 out of 8 years. And by your own admission Clinton was more of a centrist than a liberal, at least on economic issues.
"Wages have been going up for every income level for quite some time. Your claim is false."
Wages have have not kept up with inflation. Only the very wealthy can tout that. This is why Bush and the republican congress get little or no credit for the increases in income levels.
"And by your own admission Clinton was more of a centrist than a liberal, at least on economic issues."
On the free trade issue, he was republican-lite.
"Raising taxes takes money out of the economy because people have less to spend. That's just basic economics. You won't find an economist who agrees with your statement. It's simply factually wrong." - R.H.
My statement says raise taxes on the rich which would have no effect on the economy other than lowering the U.S. rate of borrowing and decreasing the deficit. I would not be against cutting taxes on lower income people.
Raising taxes on the rich would mean that they spend less money, and thus there would be less money in the economy. They would also have less money to invest, and businesses wouldn't have as much cash flow to work with and would be hurt. After Bush's tax cuts the economy skyrocketed. By just about every measurable indicator, this economy is the best in our nation's history.
"Raising taxes on the rich would mean that they spend less money, and thus there would be less money in the economy."
It has no effect. The economy was doing well when tax rates on the rich were near ninety percent and then seventy percent. We also had the greatest expansion of the middle class at that time.
"After Bush's tax cuts the economy skyrocketed. By just about every measurable indicator, this economy is the best in our nation's history."
Only the haves and the have-mores (Bush's base) are doing well. This economy sucks for working class people.
When tax rates were 70% during the Carter years Reagan cut the top rate to 28% and the economy boomed. The economy during the Carter years was horrible. The misery index was off the charts. It took tax cuts to jump start a horrific economy. It works every time it's tried; socialism doesn't.
"When tax rates were 70% during the Carter years Reagan cut the top rate to 28% and the economy boomed."
The economy did not boom. That's why we went into deficit spending and the raiding of the Social Security Fund.
Also, that's when this growing chasm between the haves and have-nots started; the destruction of labor unions; the rise of corporate power; and the depression of real wages. Before Reagan came into office, a family could live comfortably on one person's salary especially if that person was in a labor union. Today, most families can't do that. We also had this growing mentality that we shouldn't protect American jobs - Americans should compete with countries willing to pay their work force slave wages. This mentality has screwed the middle class.
During the Carter years we had double didget interest rates and high inflation, record gas prices and long lines, etc. You're right that the income distribution was more even back then, but the economic pie was also MUCH smaller. That's what happens when you try to redistribute income; the economic pie gets smaller. But I will admit that there was more equality back then. The misery was spread equally.
We had stagflation for much of the seventies and it kicked into high gear during the overthrow of the Shah of Iran. It created an energy crisis which resulted in the tripling of oil prices, the record gas prices, the long lines, etc.
Let's see. What two major events happened prior to and during the Carter presidency that had more impact on inflation than any tax passed?
Hmmmm, thinking, thinking....
Oh, I know! It was the end of the Vietnam War which caused US factories to suffer as they shifted from a wartime economy to a peacetime economy, and...
erghhhh! Thinking hard again...
Oh yeah! The arab oil embargo!
And Rino, please take a look at the historic tax tables again. We haven't had anyone getting taxed at the 70% rate since the 30's.
That's not true. The top tax rate was 90% in the 1950's and 70% in the 1970's. Just ask Solon.
Well I guess he's right to a degree on top rates, I'd argue it because I believe the data he's using is subject to these notes:
I've also argued in the past that using the filed data is unfair because it doesn't account for deductions which have varied over time.
So I don't agree with all of Salon's assumptions on this particular point.
Cutting and pasting doesn't always work!
Well I guess he's right to a degree on top rates, I'd argue it because I believe the data he's using is subject to these notes:
the table does not address the tax treatment of capital gains
the table does not take into account the alternative minimum tax or its predecessor, the minimum tax
care should be taken in comparing the income levels at which the top rate applies, not only because of the effects of inflation, but because the definition of the income base has varied over time
I've argued in the past that deductions are not taken into account either, when the amount of deductions you can take are tilted towards the top that means the top is eliminating a larger % of their gross income from tax liability than the lower classes get.
So in closing, I don't completely agree with Solon's assesment on the 70% figure.
except when clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in 93, with the predictions of recession or depression by the republicans, we went on to the longest era of sustained growth in our history. try a new line, rino.
Clinton also cut taxes on dividends and we had the huge dot com boom. He was just President at the right time.
The economy grew when Clinton initiated the tax hikes in 1993 and it continued to grow when taxes were cut on dividends in late 1997 and the dot com boom.
But Clinton raised taxes and the economy declined into a recession. Balancing the budget with high taxes created a recession. Imagine that.
What recession? You have no idea what you are talking about. Clinton never had a recession as it is most commonly defined - two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth.
Darfur has nothing to do with our national security!!??
Sorry, man. That's just plain nuts.
While we're fighting in Iraq trying to keep a fundamentalist Muslim regime from taking over a country, we just whistle in the dark as fundamentalist Muslim regimes attempt to take over an entire African continent! Egypt, Somalia, the Sudan, which is spilling over into Chad.
When Al Qaida clones can't take over a nation (like they've done the Sudan), the next best thing is leave it in anarchy (see Somalia, Iraq).
I guess you were among those 10 years ago who thought Afghanistan posed no threat to our national security, either.
No, I don't think leaving Iraq at this time is in the interest of our national security. The fact is, our wonderful POTUS should never have trumped up WMD charges to have us overthrow a Saddam regime that posed less of a threat to our national security than any future government of Iraq will now.
The fact is the current situation in Darfur and the Sudan overall is a bigger threat to our national security than Saddam Hussein ever was. Why? That government has more common interests with Al Qaida by far than Saddam could ever dream.
Because its better than giving money to a party that is committed to selling our country to China and getting as many Americans killed as possible.
Only the Democrats vote against funding our troops which would end up getting them killed. Your baseless assertions never end. And my comment was simply a response to Debunk's despicable comments about Republicans. I was illustrating absurdity by being absurd. I find it funny that you never criticize anybody on your own side for mischaracterizations. You're a total hypocrite.
That is a lie or just stupid. Tons of Republicans voted against funding bills when they had provisions THEY didnt like and Bush threatened to veto one with provisions he didnt like. Do you EVER know what you are talking about. Its hard to tell when YOU do satire since most of your posts are so divorced from reality they look like satire. I will look harder from now on. This is the kind of baseless attack you often make on the left so it was hard to tell.
Yes, the Republicans voted against the bill when it contained the surrender provision, as well they should. Most Republicans oppose surrender.
And yet you stupidly said ONLY Democrats voted against the funding bills. The Democrats voted against the Zealots who want as many Americans to die as possible bills. Just because you guys lust after getting as many Americans killed as you can doesnt mean its a good idea.
If we wanted to get as many Americans killed as possible we would take the Democrats' advice and invade Darfur. That would be a perfect way to get thousands of soldiers slaughtered.
Who is advocating INVADING Darfur? I thought it was a peacekeeping mission that was being talked about.
In order to keep the peace in such a full scale civil war a lot of our soldiers would end up getting killed.
Like they did in Kosovo, wait that DIDNT happen. I am sorry but you make a lousy prophet. An invasion is NOT the same thing as a peacekeeping force and there is no reason it would be as bloody, its possible but you dont mind if we need a bit more than your say so to go on. Your record on predictions is pretty sad.
I've got another good full scale civil war that's killing thousands of American soldiers that springs to mind, I'll give you a clue as to what it is.
It used to be called Mesopotamia, but now it's just a mess...
Yes, the Republicans voted against the bill when it contained the surrender provision, as well they should. Most Republicans oppose surrender.- RINO Hunter
Could you provide a link to the "surrender provision"? I've never heard of it, and can't find it anywhere.
If you can't find it could you at least tell us;
1. Who we're surrendering to, and
2. What we are surrendering
Thanks in advance, HBL
Oh yeah and YOU are a moron. I know its not breaking news but there it is.
Don't worry. Jesus will forgive you for your hatefulness and take your hate away if you just ask him.
Look into a mirror, Rino. You obviously have a lot of your own hatred to deal with.
Sad to say, a lot of the posters here think that Christians are nasty, bitter nutcases, not to mention intellectual lemmings. Do you think you've improved that perception any?
"Only the Democrats vote against funding our troops which would end up getting them killed. Your baseless assertions never end." - RINO Hunter
Priceless. The two sentences not even separated by a transitional irony-buffering phrase.
As a teacher, I am both shocked and delighted to hear that I am a member of whatever these people think of as "the elite." I'm so used to being treated like a servant by the public that I didn't even realize I was, instead, a member of "the elite", let alone classed as a white, rich, liberal democrat. I'll cop to white, liberal, and democrat, but I'm forced to quibble with "rich". The most you can make as a teacher in my state, with over 21 years of experience and a Ph.D., is $56K. Also, anyone who can make a ridiculous comment like "they're (teachers) controlling the minds of the young people sitting in those chairs" has obviously never spent a single day in a classroom as a teacher!
If a teacher is to be called "Elite" then it follows that O'really should be labeling the Conservatives "SUPER-DUPER-ELITIST!
THE SUPER ELITE REPUBLICAN'TS
Such as the owner of O'Really's so called Fair and Balanced Fox News Propaganda Outlet.
Such as the Republican controlled Clear Channel Radio Network that dominates with anti-Democratic radio broadcasting in our country.
O'Really uses these attack terms often. Rush Limpbrain has many such words for attacking Non-Conservatives. The word Liberal has been made to be considered an insulting label for attacking Democrats. Hence the term Proggressive was coined.
If the Democratic so called "Elites" had the resources of the "Super-Elite-Republican'ts", then they would be able to own radio networks and TV News Outlets as well.
Until then we must bring back the fairness doctrine. I would love to be a guest on O'Really's or Limpbrains broadcasts so I could haul off a slap them in the face every 7 seconds. That's how often they attack people. As you can tell, I will never get invited.
Of course. Because the Fairness Doctrine is the only way you can compete with conservatives. You can't compete in the free market, because no one wants to listen to liberal radio. So you have to resort to censorship. This new form of anti-free speech liberalism is indeed quite scary.
"Welcome to Nutsville."--RinoHunter
Thank you. Are you the Mayor?
(heh heh)- He's just the Mayor of Nutsville now, but he may be getting into the goobernatorial race next year.
You can't compete in the free market, because no one wants to listen to liberal radio.
That's lie number 1. It's been well documented that Nixon started the republican war on the airwaves, conservatives buy up radio and consolidate to determine who can and can't be heard. What drives the markets is a pure bunk line and the elections show it. Split down the middle but only conservative voices make money? <snicker!>
So you have to resort to censorship.
Lie number 2. Who is being prevented from airing their point of view? No, really? I'm waiting...
This new form of anti-free speech liberalism is indeed quite scary.
Anti free speech liberalism. Let's see, we want to give the other side, regardless of party affiliation, a chance to air their point of view and also want to ensure those who lie and slander are forced to hear the truth. Yeah, that's some anti free speech there!
It must be real wierd in your world when you have to believe that allowing those who don't have a say to gain that say goes against the tenets of free speech.
It's all about context, if you were at Fox News then you'd be in the minority, probably smarter, definitely more well informed, and able to shoot down pretty much any argument they make as easily as Rino embarasses himself. Thus to Bill'O you are an elite...
Gotta love how 'educated' and 'informed' has been effectively turned into an insult, kinda like 'do-gooder'.
Even if we conceded his point...so what? Would it somehow be better if more journalists gave money to Republicans? Would that make them any more objective? Is it his assertion that Republican journalists the only ones able to separate their politics from their profession?
More Propaganda Parrot nonsense.
Exactly Nerzog...
And the main point, as Media Matters pointed out when the journalist's study came out, is that the vast majority of journalists (what was it, something like 65%) don't make any political donations at all.
This is just more crap from O'Reilly.
Nerzog,
I agree with you. Who cares who gives money to who? It's irrelevant, ridiculous and nobody's business.
For O'Reilly to mention it is expected, for this website to even give a damn either way, well, I guess it's all part of FTCA (Furthering The Conservative Agenda)......oh NO!!
Tommy, let me see if I got this straight--you agree with what MMFA said, you just wish they hadn't said it . ?!?
The people of our country who entrust the media to deliver complete, truthful, honest and accurate reporting of all the facts need to know who's money is controlling the broadcasting.
It's our business to follow the money. It's our duty in the marketplace of information to find out, classify and expose Media Outlets for what their agendas are, if any.
High journalistic integrity was important in the distant past, but that's no longer the case. That is really sad.
Today the most entertianing or sensational presentations seem to be more attractive to the consumers. That being the case, we must now, more than ever before, monitor and expose Media Outlets for what and who they truly are.
I agree with you both - however, this is O'Reilly's attempt at furthering the tired notion that there is a 'liberal media bias'. Remember that? We don't hear that much any more. Bill's going for a comeback.
Yes, but FOX "News" is fair and balanced.
If there's one thing that really steams me, it's the most-informed and best-educated of our population choosing to contribute their money in unequal portions. Pure politically biased elitism, that's all it is. Why can't they donate to both parties equally, like Exxon does?
No Doubt...
You're going to tell us where you got your Exxon information?
Well, I admit I hadn't really looked it up until you prompted me. But here it is:
Exxon contributions
I was shocked- SHOCKED I tell you to find out they gave over $500 in 2006 alone!
Neon...
Would you mind telling us now how you concluded from the Exxon data that Exxon gave equally to Democrats and Republicans?
Otherwise, we're going to think you've been out in the sun too long.
Link
My apologies Neon...
I should have known by now that you're not a Con. I'm having a bad day.
I always love when they start busting out "The Elites". It never seems to apply to the silver spoon crowd, but to teachers and journalists, people whose status is earned with their minds and hard work, and not through inheritance or connections.
I don't really get who this is playing to, when I hear wealthy talking heads like BilldO and Hannity portraying themselves as "regular folks", while smearing teachers and writers as a dangerous and agenda-driven priveleged class.
Seems like every time one of these boneheads opens his mouth, I have to scurry off to the dictionary to reaffirm the definition of a word they're trying to turn into a pejorative.
I aspire to some day become considered one of the "elite" in anything. Something tells me that O'Really has set his goals somewhat lower.
But, you've seen how it is. Sometimes, you meet people who do recognize that their place is just keeping their bullet in their pocket, and are better off leaving sheriff to those more capable.
Huntington!
Bill Maher gives the best description of the word"elite". I don't know if you have seen it.
Ex. Wouldn't you want an elite doctor working on you?
Let me help.
An elite doctor is a professional to whom we go for advice, treatment and valuable life affirming assistance in areas in which we are not experts nor have the knowledge they possess.
A liberal elite is not a professional to whom we go for advice on how best to spend our tax dollars or manage our lives, yet they think they know better than we do but do not have the knowledge they think they possess.
That's the difference.
In the US, objections are raised to the term elite, based on the claim that the Republican Party contains a much larger percentage of the American upper class than does the Democratic Party, and that Republican economic policies benefit the wealthy more than those of Democrats; thus it is the Republican Party that should be called elitist, similarly in the UK the hereditary peers who formerly sat in the unreformed House of Lords disproportionately belonged to the Conservative Party.
I just love the dictionary, don't you?
"In the US, objections are raised to the term elite, based on the claim that the Republican Party contains a much larger percentage of the American upper class than does the Democratic Party,
So how is it that the Democrats are more intelligent than Republicans if they're in a lower class? Isn't that the claim that you and other liberals always make?
Class has nothing to do with intelligence. Paris Hilton is upper class, Linus Torvalds was not.
The vast majority of people who EARN over $200,00 per year vote Republican. You're telling me that these people aren't intelligent and merely got lucky?
Just like the working class they are a mixed bag. George W Gump makes more than 200 grand a year and he is BONE ignorant.
My point is simply that Republicans aren't ignorant as Debunked and many other liberals have claimed. There's intelligent people on both sides and dumb people on both sides.
A reasonable point but not the one I think was being made. By elites they werent talking intelligence but power which in this country is basically based on money. The GOP's policies as a basic rule are more skewed to those who have it. THAT was the point he was making with the dictionary reference to elites. To the extent the GOP is is portrayed as dumb its hard to make the argument a man like William F Buckley is dumb or ignorant, it is the stereotype of the right however just like the stereotype of the left is weak. Neither is fair. Both are used as cudgels.
Do you have the source of your information? Earning potential is generally determined by your level education and there is a mistaken assumption by some that people who make the most money are the most intelligent and I beg to differ with that, hell GW begs to differ. The other day I spoke about how many AA sports figures when they began making money they all of a sudden become registered Republicans. Oh yeah those fiscal Conservatives, it seems to me, and this is just my opinion that those newly found political affiliations is about protecting their money. Now I know they donate money and a lot of them donate time to charitable efforts but I think it's more than a coincidence that those charitable donations can bring them substantial tax write offs. Maybe there's a natural inclination toward this I don't know, but I do know that many on the right encourage selfishness under the guise of individualism. So protecting money and assets becomes all consuming even when you certainly have enough to put into a societal kitty that would make life overall better for everyone including the guys that make over 200,000.00 dollars a year.
You can't actually make money by giving to charity. You can get back some of what you gave with tax deductions, but it's not possible to actually make money by giving to charities. And I just got my information from exit polls. In the 2004 election about 66% of those who make over $200,000 per year voted for Bush.
Rino
Are you a masochist, or what?
You just can't be on the receiving end of enough ass-kickings, can you?
A few posters have a made a few decent replies to my posts, but you're not one of them. You should probably go back to the 4th grade and re-learn the basics.
That's it?
That's your comeback?
Oh, kid, you are truly sad. 'Go back to the 4th grade,' a counter which in itself is little better than a middle school taunt. Wow. Were you sticking your tongue out when you typed it? Were you making faces? What a sad, witless, & petulant little reply... another of those pouting & disordered declarations of victory that you are becoming so celebrated for.
But, hey... keep plugging away & maybe some day you'll surprise us with a retort possessed of whithering clarity.
But in the mean time, you do keep me entertained.
You call my reply a middle school taunt when your original post simply consisted of a baseless juvenile insult? Grow up dude. Those fourth graders could probably teach you a thing or two.
Rino
My first reply to you was simply an observation that you are consistently getting your ass handed to you by a multitude of posters in these threads. This is, of course, simply a common sense observation. While I somewhat admire your ability to dust yourself off & come back for more, still it often crosses all the way over from persistence to being a down right glutton for punishment... hence the masochism reference.
Your posts on THIS particular thread, however, reveal a darker explanation to this trait. Rather than demonstrating pluck & resilience, they exhibit a certain level of dementia on your part. Any objective observer couldn't help but notice the constant intellectual drubbing that you are experiencing at the hands of your fellow posters. You are sort of the Duane Bobick of conservatives. Alarmingly, though, you seem to have delusionally concluded that you are consistently WINNING these encounters. You boast of "mopping up the floor" with Solon, in spite of his clean dissections of your arguments. You've demonstrated time & time again your aggressive lack of knowledge on subjects running from the scientific method to economics to religion & on & on & on.
Whenever cornered on the impressive number of misstatements that you've made, you also tend to resort to sniveling & whining about how all us mean liberals resort to calling you names... apparently oblivious to all of the mind reading & obnoxious mischarcterizations with which you had already engaged.
Worse yet, you've shown virtually no ability to learn from these conflicts. You merely dismiss all contradictory points, repeating ad nauseum on future threads those very same debunked assertions, with a Sean Hannity-like devotion to comforting delusionality.
I would seriously recommend that you seek counceling aimed at bringing you into the reality-based community.
On the other hand, I would miss the entertainment value that the inaneness & irrationality that your current postings offer me.
Well, that's not only insulting, it's a load of bunk. But thanks for demonstrating your bias.
"Let me help."
Tommy.
I had high hopes after that. But then you continued...
"...yet they think they know better than we do but do not have the knowledge they think they possess."--Tommy
Tommy, I'd gladly pass on all my wisdom and knowledge to you, but I'm afraid you just wouldn't understand.
So, an "elite" doctor is the best, but an "elite" liberal is a caricature invented by conservative media? Thanks for clearing that up, Tommy.
M. Franco, I think I have seen Maher's bit about "elite".Just another positive word that has been demonized by those who would rather drag down their betters than strive to compete with them.
Hatred of the "elite" is a right-wing media tactic - it plays well with all the poor/uneducated people who aren't happy with their lot in life and need to blame somebody.
Wow, another example of a heavily unionized group giving more to the pro-union party than the union-busting party? I am shocked, I tell you!
But was this comment: "They're running think tanks. They're running issue tanks" supposed to be about the teachers or the RWNM?
OReilly is trying to I believe paint MSNBC as a liberal outlet and propaganda machine, meanwhile MSNBC is trying to paint FOX as a conservative outlet and GOP propaganda machine. We are even seeing Dan Abrams do this nightly on his show. These two outlets are destroying themselves. I have gone over to CNN.
The difference between those two activities is legion.
Bill O'Reilly is not accurately characterizing MSNBC as a liberal propaganda machine.
Dan Abrams and Keith Olbermann are accurately portraying FoxNews as a conservative progaganda machine.
I am not sure why an accurate portrayal by MSNBC would drive you to CNN.
The American people disagree.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/associated_press_msnbc_and_cnbc_seen_as_having_liberal_bias
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/americans_see_liberal_media_bias_on_tv_news
Good for you, RH.You are solidly in agreement with the average person. Check out this survey of Americans for any further feelings of solidarity you might need.
BTW, I'm still addressing you as RinoHunter, even though AnotherAmerican (or Deputy Barney Fife, as he prefers to be called) seemed to confess on another thread today that you and he were the same person.
To avoid another one of these rapidly devolving multiple alias accusation threads, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.It may just have been Barney's paranoia, and I don't like to speculate, preferring to stick to the facts.
If you're not Dep. Fife, you may want to speak to him about comandeering your identity.
I think he was a little confused. We're not the same person. I'm sure there's been a few times where we've posted at the exact same time if you wanted to verify that.
Ahhh, the Chaser, one of our finest exports.They've just been told they can no longer attend parliamentary press gatherings without advance notice here...while our Con government has resorted to selectively editing Wikipedia to gain an electoral advantage.
Politics is such a dirty game, but so addictive.
Ad populum, appeal to popularity a classic logical fallacy. There was a time when the majority of people thought the world was flat, didnt mean the world WAS flat and this doesnt mean the media is liberal. Only that the rightwing has LIED about it so much they accepted it. I am a liberal and the media isnt giving MY SIDE of the issues.
You have far left views that border on socialism, so of course you're not going to hear views that extreme in the media. It's more of a mainstream liberal bias. And it's funny how you just think that you're smarter than everybody else. I love how liberals claim that the American people are stupid when they see a poll that they don't like. Typical liberal elitism.
Your post is typical rightwing stupidity. Never able to read what is actually there. I didnt SAY they were stupid, I said they had been lied to over a long period of time. When you only hear one side over and over it tends to begin to sound reasonable.
I never said I was smarter then everybody else, just a whole lot smarter than YOU. Anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex could reasonably make that claim. Also since to YOU anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun is a far left liberal YOUR frankly ludicrous frame doesnt define reality. I am a liberal, the media isnt giving my side of the story. It doesnt make them biased to the left that they arent giving YOURS.
"I said they had been lied to over a long period of time"
I think that they just turn on their T.V and see the blatant liberal bias that is there. And liberals have said over and over and over again that Fox News has a conservative bias, and yet the poll shows that a plurality of people believe that Fox News is Fair and Balanced. So why didn't the constant liberal drum beat sink in with the American people the way you claim conservative arguments did?
Think what you want, it is in no way representative of ACTUAL reality. There is no liberal bias. They hear from FOX itself that they are fair and balanced every three minutes when they see it so that IS the other side. The liberals have only recently begun fighting the lies the rightwing tells constantly. Also they dont have the platforms the right does. There is NO news outlet that is a leftwing propaganda organ like Fox is for the right and the other more balanced news services dont see it as their role to carry water for the left and carry the left message the way Fox does for the right so the lefts message doesnt get the exposure the rightwing message does. So that liberal drumbeat you are talking about simply doesnt exist outside your mind.
"There is NO news outlet that is a leftwing propaganda organ like Fox is for the right"
Give me a break. MSNBC bashes Fox every night and pushes a left wing point of view. Are you going to claim that Olbermann isn't a liberal? MSNBC is solidly liberal, but it's just that nobody watches them, so it doesn't really matter what they say.
None of the news channels are liberal. If an organization fails to follow the conservative script from top to bottom, then, according to conservatives, that organization is liberal.
Fox News certainly doesn't follow the conservative script from top to bottom, and conservatives don't label Fox a liberal organization. Fox has staunch liberals like Alan Colmes and Juan Williams and far left bomb throwers like Neil Gabler. And the conservatives on Fox always invite liberals on their shows to debate them. You always hear both sides of the issue on Fox. You can't say the same about the other cable networks.
Oh yes, HANNITY and colmes, what a fair and balanced approach with a RAVING TALK OVER THE GUEST NEO-CON and a milquetoast centrist who asks Ann Coulter, don't you think that comment is over the line? to which she replies, no, not at all.
Faux loves to have "liberals" on who roll over for them. I would have to ask them and you, why are y'all afraid of real news?
The fact that Colmes isn't a hateful liberal doesn't make him any less of a liberal. He's actually a nice guy, but that obviously doesn't make him any less of a liberal. He has liberal views on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE.
Not true that Colmes is liberal on every issue. Colmes is rather centrist on some issues, liberal on others.
But the mis-match between ATTACK DOG HANNITY and "nice-guy" colmes is deliberate. The set-up for Faux News was described by David Brock in detail in his book The Right Wing Noise Machine.
What issues is Colmes centrist on? I know that he's against the Fairness Doctrine, but that's a traditionally liberal position as well. Liberals have traditionally supported free speech rights.
You are serious? See the post below this one. And from Fair.org: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1158
During one of Newt Gingrich's many appearances on Hannity & Colmes (7/24/03), Colmes thanked the former Republican House speaker profusely for writing a blurb for his upcoming book. It was nothing, Gingrich insisted: "You are my favorite liberal to argue with." And Gingrich isn't alone on the right. If Colmes remains largely a non-person in progressive circles, his tendency to concede points to the right and criticize the left make him the favorite liberal of many conservatives.In addition to Gingrich, Colmes has won the praise of Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch ("you're great for a liberal"--4/16/01), Republican House Whip Tom DeLay ("you are my favorite liberal"--10/18/99), Christian right leader James Dobson ("he's my favorite liberal"--4/28/03) and, of course, Sen. Trent Lott ("you may be a liberal but you're one of the better ones I've seen on TV"--4/30/03).
Nowhere in that article did it state that Colmes had any centrist views at all. And you might want to come up with a more objective site next time. Linking to FAIR is like linking to Media Matters; they're obviously biased.
That's absurd. The whole point of the piece was that Colmes was hired as a foil to Hannity. Maybe you should ask Colmes himself about his centrist philosophy, rhino:
"And though Fox News markets Colmes as "a hard-hitting liberal known for his electric commentary" (FoxNews.com), it doesn't even get much help from Colmes himself. "I think I'm quite moderate," Colmes blandly told USA Today (2/1/95), not long before being hired as the show's left-wing counterweight to Hannity. "
Note also that fair.org quotes other news sources that have reached the same conclusion about this ridiculous show.
O'Reilly also describes himself as a moderate, but yet you obviously don't take his word on that. Colmes has claimed over and over again since then that he's a liberal. He repeats the Democratic talking points every night. He has liberal political views.
That is silly. colmes agrees so often with the right wing frame, then mildly disagrees with how far right it is. He didn't speak out against the invasion, he defended Trent Lott, etc ad naseaum. I know you like the show because the right dominates, but come on. fair and balanced?
"Fox has staunch liberals like Alan Colmes and Juan Williams and far left bomb throwers like Neil Gabler."
Alan Colmes is a patsy who always seems to accept the conservative frame on issues. When Williams gets uppity, Hume puts him in his place. And he is also too willing to accept conservative frames. I have no idea who Garbler is.
The other day O'Rielly had Dodd on his program and I thought Dodd did a great job handling O'Rielly (I'm surprised his mic wasn't cut off). You won't find many Democrats doing that on a network that is so blatantly against them. The Democrats that go on FOX are to willing to accept conservative frames and that's why the network has them on.
You're right. Most liberals on Fox are respectful, unlike Dodd. Fox doesn't have any far left bomb throwers other than Gabler. But I don't see the point of having far left bomb throwers when you can have thoughtful intelligent liberals.
But I don't see the point of having far right bomb throwers when you can have thoughtful intelligent conservatives.
Hannity is pretty thoughtful and pretty mainstream.
Wow. A repeat limerick is called for:
There once was a pundit named Hannity
With a tenuous hold on his sanity
He talked over his guests
In his error filled quests
For more verbage to further his vanity.
Cue the straitjackets! Rino is officially bonkers.
"You're right. Most liberals on Fox are respectful, unlike Dodd."
Most of the liberals who go on FOX News are patsies. Dodd is not a patsy. More liberals should go on FOX lambasting the hosts and network for being so blatantly bias.
That's exactly why Fox doesn't have those kind of bomb throwing liberals on. Why would they want to have people on who criticize their company? That would simply be stupid from a business perspective.
The people on FOX "News"don't want to be seriously challenged. They like having these patsies on who they can knock down easily. It gives the perception that conservative positions are somehow superior to liberal position when we all know the opposite is true.
You can't say the same about the other cable networks.-R.H.
Which network doesn't present both sides?
Yes, let me say it as simply as I possibly can not MSNBC or any other channel is a left wing propaganda organ in the way FOX is a rightwing propaganda organ. The rest of the channels have some journalistic ethics and try to BE balanced instead of SAYING they are balanced while they shovel the propaganda. Its plain and simple.
Are you going to answer my question about Keith Olbermann?
Why? How would it be relevant? I never watch the guy but so what if he IS a liberal on a network that also has Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson? Again no network is a leftwing propaganda organ in the way FOX is for the right
The difference is that Scarborough and Carlson actually bring liberals in to discuss issues. You get to hear both sides of the issue. Olbermann simpy gives his far left point of view with no balance. Scarborough has also been very hard on Republicans the past few years. He's hardly a partisan these days.
You are changing your argument so there IS no difference. So conservatives dont want to come on Olbermanns show out of fear of being shown up, that means nothing and the fact the conservatives on MSNBC tend to try to be balanced and not partisan is a point in MY favor not yours. AGAIN, the claim is that MSNBC is NOT an organ of partisan left propaganda in the way FOX is for the right. NOTHING in your post is even an argument AGAINST that contention.
How do you know that conservatives won't go on Olbermann's show. My guess is that he won't allow them to come on, because it would ruin his propaganda. And your point that Fox is a propaganda outfit for the right is simply refuted by the facts. Their prime time is pretty much down the middle. O'Reilly is generally conservative, but he has liberal guests on his show to debate him. You always get to hear 2 sides. Hannity and Colmes is perfectly fair and balanced. One liberal verses one conservative along with both conservative and liberal guests. Greta's show is mostly non-political, but in the rare occasion that she does talk about politics she has a liberal point of view. So there you go.
Wrong Again:
Joe is a true Conservative. He has been (Hard - Your Word) on the NeoCons. To use a more accurate word, I would say Joe has been truthful in his attacks on Far-Right NeoCons like yourself, Rino.
I respect Joe, many of the conservative posters here and most of my Republican friends. I am sorry but I can't include you Rino. I'm glad your here to represent your views though.
I never said that he wasn't a true conservative. I just said that he doesn't support today's Republican party. There's nothing wrong with that. I respect his opinion. But he's simply not a partisan anymore, and he definetely doesn't have a partisan show. And I'm not a neo-con. Never have been. I'm not one of these people who believe that we can spread democracy throughout the middle east.
"The American people disagree." - R.H.
These polls say only about 30% believe the media has a liberal bias. It seems Americans don't disagree.
That's still a plurality of people. More people said that it had a liberal bias then said that it was fair and balanced or had a conservative bias.
Yeah. And many people think that Iraq had something to do with 9-11. What’s your point?
Oh, and if the above statement is true, how is it that this could happen with a liberal media?
World Public Opinion
Sorry. Here's the site. (how do you create the blue links?)
[link to www.worldpublicopinion.org]
never mind... :(
“For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal, media but every Republican on earth does that.” -Pat Buchanan
“I admit it: the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.” -William Kristol
Just sayin’….
Far more people think the media is either conservative or fair and balanced than liberal.
And the poll headline is ridiculous (Rasmussen republican spin). If you didn't read the contents, you would think a majority of Americans said the media was liberal. This poll by Rasmussen can be spun in a number of ways so it basically has no usefulness.
Not really. The headline is right, and you're the one spinning it. The polls showed that those who believe that there's a liberal bias in the media outnumber those who believe that there's a conservative bias by about a 2:1 margin.
Now you're putting a republican spin on the numbers like Rasmussen did. Most Americans don't believe the media is liberal which is contrary to what conservatives say. As I said before, Rasmussen falsely spun the poll for gullible conservatives with that ridiculous headline.
J...
Google Michael Moore and Wolf Blitzer, and watch Moore kick some conservative CNN ass.
It's beautiful.
I have given up on CNN also.
MSNBC job is to report news not tell us how what FOX does and does not. They lost all credibility the day they had Imus and Savage on the air.
I prefer BBC.
BBC is great
So MMFA got upset because BO said ""most journalists give money to Democrats" instead of saying, "of journalists who donated money at all to campaigns, more gave to Democrats than Republicans"
Oh no! Run for the hills!
Now I didn't study "Journalism" in college, so I'm not one of those super-genius-elites who only get into the profession on the basis of merit. Buy if a person really wanted to make an argument against BO's statement, shouldn't you guys make an argument about WHY the sample of journalists who gave money to political campaigns was NOT representative of the "profession" in general? From what I've seen, there are lots of studies that document the liberal leanings of "journalists", and not a single study that refutes that claim.
Just asking.
I don't know about anybody else, but I'm not refuting it. Actually, I'm pretty proud that those closest to the information, those most privy to the details of the goings-on in the world, choose to support liberal causes more often. Same goes for the college professors.
In other words, O'Really's trying to paint support from the brightest and most well-informed as a negative, same way he's trying to make the word "elite" sound like a pejorative. And though I've written this all before, I don't mind repeating it. Because it all comes down to conservatives and republicans in general whining that the smartest among us are biased toward democrats.
And that's a good thing.
I wish that more "journalists" would be as honest and simply admit that they were liberals.
Fox news at least has a good mix of liberal and conservative opinion. I will admit that Fox, on balance, will lean to the right.
I just hope that more on the left will at least be honest enough to admit that the NYT, LAT, CBS, CNN, etc. etc. lean to the left.
"Fox news at least has a good mix of liberal and conservative opinion"
Man, why'd you have to go and make me spit my coffee all over my keyboard. Is this your first visit here? Please continue to read this site and maybe you can come back and say something believable later.
I'll "admit" that reality has a liberal bias and that the outlets you listed report that reality. But, your credibility here would be enhanced if you admitted that Fox news is a right-wing propaganda machine.
As long as JohnTorres has set the confessional mood here, I'm going to state that the Pope leans toward Catholicism.
Now if only all of those scientists who study evolution could be as hinest and admit that they hate Jesus.
honest, not hinest. I'll also confess that I can't type.
"hinest"? perhaps you were thinking of the Pope?
Maybe! Is that a hybrid of "your highness" and "hiney"?
Yes, I believe so...hence:
your hinest, king george, and his merry band of right-wing fundies, carry the odor of sanctity about them; which leave an unpleasant zephyr behind.
BDS alert! BDS alert!
Thanks for announcing your arrival, Bloviating Dumb-Sh*t.Now, did you have a point? ;0)
Fox News has lots of liberal hosts and guests on their programs. Both BO and SH spar with libs on a constant basis.
um... name the last time Keith Olbermann had a conservative guest on his program?
He tends to have unbiased guests - you know, real journalists instead of those unbearable "strategists" that talk over each other on Fox.
He tends to have unbiased guests - you know, real journalists
These are recent guests -
Aug 12 - Cindy SheehanAug 17 - Catherine Zeta-Jones
Real journalists? Unbiased?
No - look at the MSNBC web site and look for yourself. The guests are either lib entertainers, lefty radicals, left profs, and MSM lib "journalists" - Never any conservatives - ever.
Why? The only obvious answer is that KO is a scared little boy who is too much of a wimp to face anyone with views not as radically left as his own.
No the other obvious answer is conservatives are scared little wimps and dont want to go on his show.
It’s funny how every time this topic comes up the only people the Right can point to for proof of a liberal media are Olberman and Colmes. Interesting…
I honestly don’t know why liberals even bother going on these righty shows. They get five minutes to defend a position that the host has spent days, sometimes weeks railing against, if the guest does manage to get the upper hand their mike gets cut or they’re shouted down, and after the guest “gets the last word” the host spends days twisting and mischaracterizing what the guest had said. Liberals are just another tool these hacks use to spread their lies, while at the same time they smugly proclaim that they welcome the opposing viewpoint. Sure.
No they dont, why dont YOU be honest and admit they DONT? I reade the LA Times for a decade we used to call it Pravda West it was so subservient to power. The NYTimes LED the runup to the war in Iraq that would be liberal HOW? Just because you have false impressions doesnt mean when we disagree with them we are dishonest. Nice try at a when did you stop beating your wife frame.
Are you as concerned about the political leanings of the editors, the publishers, the owners. In fact the real power in these organizations, is it as important to you as confirmation of your internal bias?
John?
Fox doesn't lean a little to the right! Fox News has fallen flat on its face to the right. I would even feel O.K. with saying Fox News is joined at the hip with the Republican Conservatives. This is common knowledge at this late date and time.
John, it's high time for a reality check! You're in big time denial. Your perceptions of the News Media leanings are way off base.
I really hope for your sake that you do some research into this matter. Good Luck and keep posting your comments.
Everyone says Fox News is solidly to the right. I sometimes watch their news and it looks like news to me. They have their pundits, but so does everyone else.
To complain about Fox is really just a red herring. Fox is only a cable TV show. CBS, NBC, ABC all lean left and have since the days of Conkcrite, David and Chet, and Rather. Now we have CNN and MSNBC and probably some others that escape me at the moment.
The print media has long been way to the left. That runs from most of the daily newspapers to the weekly news magazines. To deny that is simply to deny reality.
Talk radio seems to be pretty much conservative. Is Air America still on? For some reason liberals haven't found a radio voice out there yet who gets the ratings of those conservatives. Maybe some day one of them will.
So you have most of the TV-media liberal and practically all of the print media (with the exception of the WSJ and a few others). And you have one cable channel, and talk radio that leans conservative. Ok. Take your pick.
Nope AA :
Great post but we just don't see it the same AA. I can listen to a totally truthful news report about the negative aspects of the Iraq War or Vise Versa and I don't throw labels at it. If it's true I respect it.
Conservatives I know such as yourself tend to label news as "Liberal Bias" if anything truthfully negative is accurately reported about the Iraq War.
After talking myself blue in the face, a small number of my Republican't friends will admit to the truth of this behavior.
But most of them remain in denial like I'm sure you are. And you denied it all the way to your loss of the Senate and Congress. You will continue to be in denial when you lose control of the Presidency in 08.
I'm hoping Senator Warner is the straw that breaks the Republican'ts, I mean the camels back. Warner is highly respected, Republican and has reported the truth about that war. He should have done this years ago, but I'm happy with right now.
All the previous calls for a pullout of our troops was greeted as Liberal Bias, Cut & Runners, Losers, unpatriotic, not supporting the troops and the Three L's. Loonitic, Liberal Losers who don't want to win an unwinable blunder created by President GWB.
Thank You Senator Warner for being one of the growing number of Republicans with the guts to be a leader instead of a follower of GWB.
Thanks also to Senators Hagel and Smith who invoked the terms Blunder and Criminal to the GWB's shameful administration of this war.
AA, I’m sure that you would agree that on the run up to the Iraqi invasion, any information that depicted Iraq in a negative way was good for the administration. It made their case for war easy to sell to the American people. So how is it, with a predominantly liberal media, that the frequency of misperceptions in regards to: Evidence of al-Qaeda links, WMDs found, and a favorable world opinion, was remarkably high in all five of the television networks and print media? In other words; false information that favored this administration was being reported by the “liberal media”. Somehow that doesn’t make sense. You could argue that it was due to laziness. You could argue that it was due to incompetence. But here’s the thing; it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter because if the media had a liberal bias then false information, or any information, that favored the administration would have been ignored, buried or spun. You can’t really look at the media coverage in the first couple years of this war and tell me with a straight face that the media has a liberal bias. I welcome your thoughts.
Because it might BE representative, that is the huge majority gave to neither side. Every study I have seen that tried to show BIAS failed miserably. The best one I saw that asked opinions showed what I would have expected the majority was economically more conservative and socially more liberal than the middle of the road voter.
I notice a couple of issues with this piece, at least. The first has to do with the use of the term "elites." This term is now, of course, another in a whole series of buzzwords, which distracts from substance. Elite now refers to a group of people that you see yourself as in polar opposite disagreement with. Anyone who chooses to use such a word is now suspect. We have O'Reilly and Coulter and other ideology promoters to thank for this kind of mentality. Secondly, it appears that the discussion did not get around to looking at the purposes of the two groups. We would hope that universities are there to educate, which means that they present many views. I recall taking a course in abnormal psychology in graduate school. The professor did not believe there was such a thing as mental illness, a fad view of that era. Since I worked with people who had mental illness, I could not accept his view. Even though I expressed a difference, based on my experience, I still got a high grade. This is hard for some people to understand. I think if people have an agenda to promote, they cannot understand the process of trying to uncover deeper levels of truth. The purpose of doing so, is to achieve greater levels of success. While it is obvious that a better medicine cures more people, many people do not correlate the same principle when it comes to sociology and psychology. Oil and gas has a much narrower interest. While science is great for finding oil, promotion is key to profit margin and increased value of shares. Until corporate interest takes over the universities, they can continue to search for truth. When corporate interest does get control, that will end. Then universities will be just like the oil companies. The way things are going, it probably won't be long. In fact, I think that O"Reilly and Coulter look forward to such a turn of events. They would probably donate money to expedite such an outcome.
RH
TO MEDIA MATTERS;
AT THE BEGINNING OF THE ARTICLE ON O'REILLY I NOTED THAT HE BOASTFULLY REFERS TO HARVARD AT HIS "ALMA MATER"
I HAVE READ DOCUMENTS AND HEARD ON TV THAT O'REILLY SPENT JUST ONE YEAR PROCURING AN MBA. I HAVE HAD SOME EXEPRIENCE IN THIS AREA, AND IT WOULD TAKE GREAT EFFORT TO COMPLETE AN MBA IN ONE YEAR. I DO NOT BELIEVE HE HAD THE TIME TO DO THAT.
I BELIEVE THAT HIS UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE CAME FROM SOME TEACHER'S COLLEGE WITH A MAJOR IN TEACHING.
YAKYM@WORLDNET.ATT.NET
"That doesn't make any sense. And why would they want to donate to a party that cares more about protecting the rights of terrorists than protecting the American people?"
We can protect the rights of everyone (innocent or guilty) and still protect America. You're presenting a false dichotomy and most people can see right through it.
It isn't polarized to support, with small donations, candidates that espouse, even if they only act on them in the breach (Democrats), your beliefs. How did academics, teachers and newsroom workers (even "journalists", but we need a better definition of what that is--not a stenographer or news-reader...) become "elites"? I though rich people were elites...and the drug rehab centers--how did that get there? Were they just reminiscing about their own recent visits...? And just who is stupid enough to waste time watching such clear and unglazed ignorance? I just don't get it...these folks are more than just stupid, they are clearly freaks of nature.
If you want to know who contributes to political candidates in New York, visit this web site at http://www.elections.state.ny.us/NYSBOE/finance/ContributionSearchA.htm
Fox News individuals are John Moody, Bill Shine, Roger Ailes, Hannity and O'relly
<a href="http://www.pro.com" >Professional</a> liar O'Reilly can't tell the truth again. No surprise though.