The Shit Is On Now...

[Nbadan]

Two FAUX News Employees Kidnapped by Palestinian gunmen in GAZA...


Palestinian gunmen kidnapped two foreign journalists working for the Fox News television channel in Gaza on Monday, a witness said.

The witness, a Palestinian who worked with the two journalists, said one of them, a producer, was an American, and the other, whose nationality he did not know, was a cameraman.

The Fox News bureau in Jerusalem said it was checking the report.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the abduction.

The witness said two vehicles blocked the journalist's transmission truck in the center of Gaza City and a masked man put a gun to the bodyguard's head, forcing him to the ground.

Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060814/ts_nm/mideast_gaza_kidnapping_dc_3)

Please let it be Hannity.....please let it be Hannity.....please let it be Hannity...please let it be Geraldo....please let it be Geraldo...please let it be Geraldo..

[Sec24Row7]

You need to get kicked in the nuts about every 30 seconds for the rest of your life for this post.

[ShackO]

Two FAUX News Employees Kidnapped by Palestinian gunmen in GAZA...

.

Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060814/ts_nm/mideast_gaza_kidnapping_dc_3)

Please let it be Hannity.....please let it be Hannity.....please let it be Hannity...please let it be Geraldo....please let it be Geraldo...please let it be Geraldo..

Maybe they should just start bombing the entire area until they are returned..

[MannyIsGod]

Two FAUX News Employees Kidnapped by Palestinian gunmen in GAZA...

.

Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060814/ts_nm/mideast_gaza_kidnapping_dc_3)

Please let it be Hannity.....please let it be Hannity.....please let it be Hannity...please let it be Geraldo....please let it be Geraldo...please let it be Geraldo..Thats pretty fucked.

[101A]

Two FAUX News Employees Kidnapped by Palestinian gunmen in GAZA...

.

Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060814/ts_nm/mideast_gaza_kidnapping_dc_3)

Please let it be Hannity.....please let it be Hannity.....please let it be Hannity...please let it be Geraldo....please let it be Geraldo...please let it be Geraldo..


:depressed

[jochhejaam]

Two FAUX News Employees Kidnapped by Palestinian gunmen in GAZA...

.Please let it be Hannity.....please let it be Hannity.....please let it be Hannity...please let it be Geraldo....please let it be Geraldo...please let it be Geraldo..


Two American Journalists kidnapped, they may not survive the ordeal and you choose to be stupid about it.

Tasteless, pathethic but not surprising.

[JoeChalupa]

I concur.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Two FAUX News Employees Kidnapped by Palestinian gunmen in GAZA...

.

Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060814/ts_nm/mideast_gaza_kidnapping_dc_3)

Please let it be Hannity.....please let it be Hannity.....please let it be Hannity...please let it be Geraldo....please let it be Geraldo...please let it be Geraldo..

How's this you sorry excuse for a human being...

Whatever happens to the two guys kidnapped, also happens to you. Still rooting for their heads on a platter?

You are one sick fuck and you don't deserve the protection of free speech that our troops fight and die for.

[Nbadan]

It was just a joke, but on the other hand, I have never once heard FAUX News apologise to all the U.S. troops and their families who have made the ultimate sacrafice in Iraq for pimping W's war, which we now know was highly based on the intelligence of a Iranian traitor. Not one lie about WMD's or links to Al-Queda have ever been retracted by FAUX News, if anything they have continued to perpetuate the lie. Of course, who needs credibility when your audience are sheeple and your most used source is 'sources say'?

[Sec24Row7]

Dude... People like you are still alive because of jail time and the death penalty.

[Extra Stout]

So Nbadan roots for his political opponents to be killed. Oh, but it's OK because he's joking! Look, conservatives being slaughtered! Ha ha, isn't that funny!

But even if he weren't joking, they still deserve to be killed because... they still support the Iraq war! Or at least their employer does!

There's the moral code of Nbadan, folks. I just thought he was an unhinged lefty. I didn't realize he was a Maoist.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

These journalists were doing their jobs and should be released immediately without harm. Especially the background guys like producers and videojournalists, they're doing their jobs, not trying to harass people.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Actually, AP's reporting that it was a reporter and videojournalist.

2 Fox News Journalists Kidnapped by Gunmen in Gaza



Published: August 14, 2006 3:00 PM ET

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip Palestinian gunmen ambushed a car carrying a Fox News crew in Gaza City on Monday and kidnapped two of the journalists inside, according to witnesses and Fox. "We can confirm that two of our people were taken against their will in Gaza," Fox News said in a statement.

A Fox employee in Gaza, who declined to give his name because he was not authorized to release information about the incident, said the two kidnapped people were reporter Steve Centanni, a U.S. citizen, and a cameraman from New Zealand.

The men, along with a bodyguard, were parked near the headquarters of the Palestinian security services when two trucks filled with gunmen pulled up and boxed them in, according to the employee. The gunmen took the two out of their sports utility vehicle, which was marked "TV," and drove away, he said.

Major militant groups in Gaza denied having any connection to the abduction, and there was no immediate word of any demands made.

Security officials put police across Gaza on alert to find the gunmen and free the journalists, said Interior Ministry spokesman Khaled Abu Hilal.

"This is not acceptable at all," he said.

Several foreigners have been kidnapped in Gaza in recent months with their abductors demanding jobs from the Palestinian Authority or the release of people being held in Palestinian jails. All those kidnapped have been released within hours without harm.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002986175

[George Gervin's Afro]

How's this you sorry excuse for a human being...

Whatever happens to the two guys kidnapped, also happens to you. Still rooting for their heads on a platter?

You are one sick fuck and you don't deserve the protection of free speech that our troops fight and die for.


oh and you must be the judge on who deserves that protection don't you ditto head? let me guess because i think our president is an incompetent moron i don't deserve those protections our troops are fighting for?.

by the way how does the fighting in iraq have anything to do with our freedom of speech?

[George Gervin's Afro]

It was just a joke, but on the other hand, I have never once heard FAUX News apologise to all the U.S. troops and their families who have made the ultimate sacrafice in Iraq for pimping W's war, which we now know was highly based on the intelligence of a Iranian traitor. Not one lie about WMD's or links to Al-Queda have ever been retracted by FAUX News, if anything they have continued to perpetuate the lie. Of course, who needs credibility when your audience are sheeple and your most used source is 'sources say'?


It's because Dan you can't justify an unecessary war.. there is nothing the war whores can do about it now.. of course these war supporters seem to think that sending our young to die in an unecessary war is actually supporting them... when you and I have the audacity to question their views we are then accused of not supporting the troops because we do not support the mission.. see as a republican you can have it both ways..

[RandomGuy]

The worst thing about most conservatives:

No sense of humor.

I see a lot of you jumped on Dan's very obvious joke, but failed to point out that Hannity would be the first person to make the exact same joke the other way "please let it be Hillary..."

[Extra Stout]

The worst thing about most conservatives:

No sense of humor.

I see a lot of you jumped on Dan's very obvious joke, but failed to point out that Hannity would be the first person to make the exact same joke the other way "please let it be Hillary..."
Ah, yes, the "hey, the other side does it too!!!!" fallacy. No, it's not even that, but rather the "hey, I bet the other side would do it too!!!!" fallacy.

I know, I'll go find some ridiculous comment by Randi Rhodes or Markos Zuniga and smear you with it!

I guess I need to work on my sense of humor. Hey, you disagree with me on politics. I hope terrorists kill you! HA HA AH HAHAHAHAHA

Nope, still don't get it.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Ah, yes, the "hey, the other side does it too!!!!" fallacy. No, it's not even that, but rather the "hey, I bet the other side would do it too!!!!" fallacy.

I know, I'll go find some ridiculous comment by Randi Rhodes or Markos Zuniga and smear you with it!

I guess I need to work on my sense of humor. Hey, you disagree with me on politics. I hope terrorists kill you! HA HA AH HAHAHAHAHA

Nope, still don't get it.


yeah that has been the neocon argument trying to justify the unecessary war.."the dems said it too".. fallacy..

[Extra Stout]

It's because Dan you can't justify an unecessary war.. there is nothing the war whores can do about it now.. of course these war supporters seem to think that sending our young to die in an unecessary war is actually supporting them... when you and I have the audacity to question their views we are then accused of not supporting the troops because we do not support the mission.. see as a republican you can have it both ways..
Because of course questioning the wisdom of the war and wanting to see your political opponents executed come from the same line of reasoning...

So, let's see here, I question the wisdom of the war because it has helped move Iran closer to WMD's than Saddam was in his wildest wet dreams...

So, by your logic, I must want to see my political opponents dead...

But I'm confused. I disagree with liberals on most things, but disagree with a lot of conservatives on the war. Should I just be praying for everyone to get killed?

[Extra Stout]

yeah that has been the neocon argument trying to justify the unecessary war.."the dems said it too".. fallacy..
And of course flinging excrement at each other, "You did it first!" "No, you did it!" "No, you did it!" is both constructive and persuasive.

[George Gervin's Afro]

And of course flinging excrement at each other, "You did it first!" "No, you did it!" "No, you did it!" is both constructive and persuasive.


when it comes to justifying a war it becomes disgraceful..

[Extra Stout]

when it comes to justifying a war it becomes disgraceful..
See, you're exactly the same as so many conservatives except on the other side. You don't even think, you just regurgitate whatever the party line is.

Just above, I posted the reason for my disapproval of the war effort, and you reply with a smug, self-righteous reply about how "disgraceful" my justification of the war is.

You don't read. You don't think.

You just see, oh ES called out Nbadan, therefore he must be a neocon, and you pick up a pile of poo to fling.

How can you contribute anything to a discussion if you can't even think?

[RandomGuy]

Ah, yes, the "hey, the other side does it too!!!!" fallacy. No, it's not even that, but rather the "hey, I bet the other side would do it too!!!!" fallacy.

I know, I'll go find some ridiculous comment by Randi Rhodes or Markos Zuniga and smear you with it!

I guess I need to work on my sense of humor. Hey, you disagree with me on politics. I hope terrorists kill you! HA HA AH HAHAHAHAHA

Nope, still don't get it.

You are indeed correct. "The other side does it too" is a fallacy. After re-reading my post, I implied otherwise, my apologies.

I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy involved. Generally the same people who jump on that joke would be willing to let the same thing slide were it the other way around.

I do, however, find this unreservedly funny:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7441/1416/1600/HannitySucksAss.0.jpg

[Nbadan]

What exactly do you call it when AHF, G-Town and others come in here and call me a Hizbollah whore or a Iranian Islamo-fascist because of my political views? What do you think they wish of me?

[George Gervin's Afro]

See, you're exactly the same as so many conservatives except on the other side. You don't even think, you just regurgitate whatever the party line is.

Just above, I posted the reason for my disapproval of the war effort, and you reply with a smug, self-righteous reply about how "disgraceful" my justification of the war is.

You don't read. You don't think.

You just see, oh ES called out Nbadan, therefore he must be a neocon, and you pick up a pile of poo to fling.

How can you contribute anything to a discussion if you can't even think?

party line? the iraq war was unecessary... do we need to win there? yes..do we have any idea on how to accomplish that? ...

[Extra Stout]

What exactly do you call it when AHF, G-Town and others come in here and call me a Hizbollah whore or a Iranian Islamo-fascist because of my political views? What do you think they wish of me?
I think they wish to call you mean names.

Was that supposed to be an argument? "People call me names" = "people wish me dead?"

And you think that AHF and gculo should be the benchmark for the level of discourse in here? Is this the political forum or second grade recess?

[RandomGuy]

What exactly do you call it when AHF, G-Town and others come in here and call me a Hizbollah whore or a Iranian Islamo-fascist because of my political views? What do you think they wish of me?

My point exactly.

I find a lot it just a wee bit on the hateful side. I don't agree with a fair part of what Dan believes in, but when I don't, the last thing I resort to is ad hominem, which is the first thing that g-town et al. go to, if they deign to rebut it at all due to the "ignore" cowardice.

[Extra Stout]

My point exactly.

I find a lot it just a wee bit on the hateful side. I don't agree with a fair part of what Dan believes in, but when I don't, the last thing I resort to is ad hominem, which is the first thing that g-town et al. go to, if they deign to rebut it at all due to the "ignore" cowardice.

gculo is the standard now? Seriously? You agree with Nbadan on that point?

[Extra Stout]

I cannot believe that Nbadan actually insinuated himself to be the left-wing equivalent of AHF and gculo. That is a cataclysmic display of self-ownage. Classic, really.

[Ocotillo]

Just shows the basic incivility of political discourse nowadays. I know I read somewhere of people joking about Jill Carroll's misfortune of being taken hostage.

the aid worker, I don't recall her name that was killed was sneered at by some because she was over there actually helping Iraqis.

My main gripe is the article refers to people from Fox as journalists.

[Nbadan]

I cannot believe that Nbadan actually insinuated himself to be the left-wing equivalent of AHF and gculo. That is a cataclysmic display of self-ownage. Classic, really.

Reading a bit to much into what I posted are we?

[RandomGuy]

gculo is the standard now? Seriously? You agree with Nbadan on that point?

That is a bit of a strawman. The "et al." means that Mr. -town is not alone in his bad habits, and was simply selected as the most extreme example of such ideologues as can be found on the right. More of a rhetorical florish than a "standard".

[DarkReign]

But I'm confused. I disagree with liberals on most things, but disagree with a lot of conservatives on the war. Should I just be praying for everyone to get killed?

Join the fucking club. You liberal bitch.

[Extra Stout]

That is a bit of a strawman. The "et al." means that Mr. -town is not alone in his bad habits, and was simply selected as the most extreme example of such ideologues as can be found on the right. More of a rhetorical florish than a "standard".
I didn't bring up AHF or gculo as counterexamples, so how can it be a strawman?

And of course selecting "extreme examples" makes for a solid refutation of my depiction of Dan's views as extreme. Selecting notably inarticulate and risible people as counterexamples goes a long way towards reinforcing Dan's credibility.

And sure, adding an "et al." does not mean "other people like these two" but rather "posters who actually are taken seriously, but who I can't think of right now, even though they're the ones I really need to mention for my point not to fall flat on its face."

[RandomGuy]

I didn't bring up AHF or gculo as counterexamples, so how can it be a strawman?

And of course selecting "extreme examples" makes for a solid refutation of my depiction of Dan's views as extreme. Selecting notably inarticulate and risible people as counterexamples goes a long way towards reinforcing Dan's credibility.

And sure, adding an "et al." does not mean "other people like these two" but rather "posters who actually are taken seriously, but who I can't think of right now, even though they're the ones I really need to mention for my point not to fall flat on its face."

Honestly I think there is some miscommunication here, but I am rapidly getting to the point where I cease to care.

I don't think I said or even implied such a refutation.

In my experience, Dan is not quite as frothing-at-the-mouth wacky as a lot of real scary types on the right. He would be the first to admit he is on the left, and that is readily apparent, but I think the right levels [/I]far[I] more vitriol on a regular basis at the left than the other way around.

To be honest, there are your boutons, and I have very certainly talked to, and heatedly debated with, some real nutjob conspiracy dorks on the left.

But the left has nothing that even compares to the mouthpeices that one sees in the form of Rush Limbaugh, or Fox "news" that do nothing but give platforms for demogogues. These people inspire and arm people like hoopsfan, xray, yoni, and others both here and on other boards that I have frequented, with all the truth that they need to go out and say that liberals are traitors, scum, and whatever else they are told by the new demogogues.

The fact that people in the center have bought into the "liberal media" myth is a good example of how effective such propaganda has been.

[Obstructed_View]

What exactly do you call it when AHF, G-Town and others come in here and call me a Hizbollah whore or a Iranian Islamo-fascist because of my political views?
Since you are rooting for Americans to be kidnapped and harmed by those groups, and cheering when it happens, I would call it "not far off the mark".

[RandomGuy]

Since you are rooting for Americans to be kidnapped and harmed by those groups, and cheering when it happens, I would call it "not far off the mark".

It may have been an attempt at humor but that doesn't make Dan an al-Qaeda sympathizer.

[gtownspur]

It may have been an attempt at humor but that doesn't make Dan an al-Qaeda sympathizer.


It's hard to believe that, when it seems that he willingly will ignore the facts about terrorist, and will always pin the blame on Bush.

When, you pin conspiracies (Katrina, the racial cleansing of blacks, and the 911 colloboration) you yourself can't believe, on a political opponent you don't agree with, how can you expect respect from your opponents.

i think nbadan is a shameful person. if you think i'm extreme, atleast i truly believe in what i believe.


I also don't go around this forum trying to jump on people because i have to prove i'm moderate in my beliefs. It's stupid to have an inferiority complex.

You don't see me hurling insults at octillo, smeagol, Darrin S, or other liberals. Only those who are dishonest and just try to rile up people.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Please let it be Hannity.....please let it be Hannity.....please let it be Hannity...please let it be Geraldo....please let it be Geraldo...please let it be Geraldo..

Dude, totally uncool. It should be O'Reilly and Cavuto.

[Ocotillo]

You don't see me hurling insults at octillo, smeagol, Darrin S, or other liberals. Only those who are dishonest and just try to rile up people.

Hey thanks!

Although I disagree with most of what conservatives say on this site, I do try to keep a sense of civility. I don't always accomplish that though. Sometimes it's just been a bad day.

[Nbadan]

Dude, totally uncool. It should be O'Reilly and Cavuto.

Don't forget John Gibson.

[2centsworth]

Honestly I think there is some miscommunication here, but I am rapidly getting to the point where I cease to care.

I don't think I said or even implied such a refutation.

In my experience, Dan is not quite as frothing-at-the-mouth wacky as a lot of real scary types on the right. He would be the first to admit he is on the left, and that is readily apparent, but I think the right levels [/I]far[I] more vitriol on a regular basis at the left than the other way around.

To be honest, there are your boutons, and I have very certainly talked to, and heatedly debated with, some real nutjob conspiracy dorks on the left.

But the left has nothing that even compares to the mouthpeices that one sees in the form of Rush Limbaugh, or Fox "news" that do nothing but give platforms for demogogues. These people inspire and arm people like hoopsfan, xray, yoni, and others both here and on other boards that I have frequented, with all the truth that they need to go out and say that liberals are traitors, scum, and whatever else they are told by the new demogogues.

The fact that people in the center have bought into the "liberal media" myth is a good example of how effective such propaganda has been.

The only reason I respond to you is because you have an unusual combination of potential and blindness.

You are without a doubt NBADANS target audience.

[Nbadan]

You are without a doubt NBADANS target audience.

I have a target audience? I thought my audience was people who can think for themselves?

[gtownspur]

I have a target audience? I thought my audience was people who can think for themselves?

:spin :spin :spin :spin :spin :spin

[2centsworth]

I have a target audience? I thought my audience was people who can think for themselves?
don't play dumb. Your audience is people who can be easily manipulated.

[smeagol]

You don't see me hurling insults at octillo, smeagol, Darrin S, or other liberals. Only those who are dishonest and just try to rile up people.
Well, NBAdan and boutons think I'm a conservative, which means I must be a moderate.

[ShackO]

So Pat Robertson roots for his political opponents to be killed. Oh, but it's OK because he's joking! Look, Hugo Chavez being slaughtered! Ha ha, isn't that funny!
.:spin

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

What exactly do you call it when AHF, G-Town and others come in here and call me a Hizbollah whore or a Iranian Islamo-fascist because of my political views? What do you think they wish of me?

1. You are Hizbollah whore.

2. I still wouldn't root for a terrorist to kidnap you and possibly chop off your head..

That's the problem with you, everything is overexaggerated and a total twist of words.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Honestly I think there is some miscommunication here, but I am rapidly getting to the point where I cease to care.

I don't think I said or even implied such a refutation.

In my experience, Dan is not quite as frothing-at-the-mouth wacky as a lot of real scary types on the right. He would be the first to admit he is on the left, and that is readily apparent, but I think the right levels [/I]far[I] more vitriol on a regular basis at the left than the other way around.

To be honest, there are your boutons, and I have very certainly talked to, and heatedly debated with, some real nutjob conspiracy dorks on the left.

But the left has nothing that even compares to the mouthpeices that one sees in the form of Rush Limbaugh, or Fox "news" that do nothing but give platforms for demogogues. These people inspire and arm people like hoopsfan, xray, yoni, and others both here and on other boards that I have frequented, with all the truth that they need to go out and say that liberals are traitors, scum, and whatever else they are told by the new demogogues.

The fact that people in the center have bought into the "liberal media" myth is a good example of how effective such propaganda has been.

Wow, lots to respond to there...

I consider myself basically in the middle. Yeah, it may not seem like it, but you've got to go a long way to the right to counterbalance NBADunce and croutons on this forum.

I don't agree with everything Bush has done, even though some folks may think so. There are some dumb things he has done WRT the Middle East.

That said, I'll support what he's doing because he's got some smart folks around him and the alternative, i.e. pussies like Kerry, being in power scares the hell out of me.

Then on top of that you pile on CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc. bagging on Bush and all Republicans any chance they get, and well this whole "buying into the liberal media myth" thing looks as stupid as Random Guy's post.

I don't listen to anyone on the right cry about it and buy into any conspiracies. All you have to do is turn on the fucking channel for five minutes and listen to Lou Dobbs or Dan Rather or whatever network mouthpiece is on the TV and you don't have to "buy into" a damn thing as far as conspiracies go.

What cracks me up about the media bias shit is that the left sits there and trashes Fox News for being conservative, while they talk out of the other side of their mouths about how great and objective CNN and others are. That's bullshit.

Fox is slanted to the right. CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, and ABC to the left. This is pretty common knowledge for anyone with half a brain. Deal with it. Fox isn't some great satan because they don't suck Democratic dick like the rest of the news networks.

As to guys like Dan on this board. Well let's see, if he's not claiming government conspiracies about 9/11 he's calling Bush a liar and in it for the oil, worrying about our intelligence groups eavesdropping on phone calls to Pakistan, Iran, and Somalia, and other stupid shit like that.

THen you get croutons with his whole juvenile fifteen year old "shrub/dickhead" shit, and yeah it's hard not to see that shit and lean to the right to try and balance out some of all that nonsense.

Bush isn't perfect, that's for damn sure. But anything's better than a pacifistic anti-war guy (Kerry) who would have put his head in the sand in 9/11 and begged Osama to just leave us alone, basically the exact same thing he turned his back on his fellow soldiers and tried to do in 'Nam.

My biggest problem with guys like Dan and croutons is this utopian belief that the demos wouldn't be paying back political favors and campaign contributions if they were in charge. All politicians do it.

Neither side has room to talk and to pretend otherwise just shows the (lack of) intelligence of whoever is arguing so.

Where the dividing line is for me is that I want someone in charge who is strong against terror, let's the economy do its thing, views the UN with the healthy skepticism that it has earned, won't work to take away our right to bear arms (as HIllary and others are working to do) and won't take shit from anyone who tries to fuck with America.

The rest is just bipartisan bickering. *shrugs*

[Nbadan]

You are Hizbollah whore

...but I know you wish me the best of health.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I will, the day you wish it for our troops.

[Nbadan]

I will, the day you wish it for our troops.

Is that the troops in Iraq or the troops already showing up on the streets of America suffering from PTSS and Gulf war Syndrome that no one seems to care about?

[RandomGuy]

Then on top of that you pile on CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc. bagging on Bush and all Republicans any chance they get, and well this whole "buying into the liberal media myth" thing looks as stupid as Random Guy's post.

I don't listen to anyone on the right cry about it and buy into any conspiracies. All you have to do is turn on the fucking channel for five minutes and listen to Lou Dobbs or Dan Rather or whatever network mouthpiece is on the TV and you don't have to "buy into" a damn thing as far as conspiracies go.

What cracks me up about the media bias shit is that the left sits there and trashes Fox News for being conservative, while they talk out of the other side of their mouths about how great and objective CNN and others are. That's bullshit.


Republicans of all stripes have done quite well for themselves during the past five decades fulminating about the liberal cabal/progressive thought police who spin, supplant and sometimes suppress the news we all consume. (Indeed, it's not only conservatives who find this whipping boy to be an irresistible target. In late 1993 Bill Clinton whined to Rolling Stone that he did not get "one damn bit of credit from the knee-jerk liberal press.") But while some conservatives actually believe their own grumbles, the smart ones don't. They know mau-mauing the other side is just a good way to get their own ideas across--or perhaps prevent the other side from getting a fair hearing for theirs. On occasion, honest conservatives admit this. Rich Bond, then chair of the Republican Party, complained during the 1992 election, "I think we know who the media want to win this election--and I don't think it's George Bush." The very same Rich Bond, however, also noted during the very same election, "There is some strategy to it [bashing the 'liberal' media].... If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on the next one."

Bond is hardly alone. That the media were biased against the Reagan Administration is an article of faith among Republicans. Yet James Baker, perhaps the most media-savvy of them, owned up to the fact that any such complaint was decidedly misplaced. "There were days and times and events we might have had some complaints [but] on balance I don't think we had anything to complain about," he explained to one writer. Patrick Buchanan, among the most conservative pundits and presidential candidates in Republican history, found that he could not identify any allegedly liberal bias against him during his presidential candidacies. "I've gotten balanced coverage, and broad coverage--all we could have asked. For heaven sakes, we kid about the 'liberal media,' but every Republican on earth does that," the aspiring American ayatollah cheerfully confessed during the 1996 campaign. And even William Kristol, without a doubt the most influential Republican/neoconservative publicist in America today, has come clean on this issue. "I admit it," he told a reporter. "The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." Nevertheless, Kristol apparently feels no compunction about exploiting and reinforcing the ignorant prejudices of his own constituency. In a 2001 pitch to conservative potential subscribers to his Rupert Murdoch-funded magazine, Kristol complained, "The trouble with politics and political coverage today is that there's too much liberal bias.... There's too much tilt toward the left-wing agenda. Too much apology for liberal policy failures. Too much pandering to liberal candidates and causes." (It's a wonder he left out "Too much hypocrisy.")

In recent times, the right has ginned up its "liberal media" propaganda machine. Books by both Ann Coulter and Bernard Goldberg have topped the bestseller lists, stringing together a series of charges so extreme that, well, it's amazing neither one thought to accuse "liberals" of using the blood of conservatives' children for extra flavor in their soy-milk decaf lattes.

Given the success of Fox News, the Wall Street Journal editorial pages, the Washington Times, the New York Post, The American Spectator, The Weekly Standard, the New York Sun, National Review, Commentary, Limbaugh, Drudge, etc., no sensible person can dispute the existence of a "conservative media." The reader might be surprised to learn that neither do I quarrel with the notion of a "liberal media." It is tiny and profoundly underfunded compared with its conservative counterpart, but it does exist. As a columnist for The Nation and an independent weblogger for MSNBC.com, I work in the middle of it, and so do many of my friends. And guess what? It's filled with right-wingers.


First cut and paste.

[RandomGuy]

Unlike most of the publications named above, liberals, for some reason, feel compelled to include the views of the other guy on a regular basis in just the fashion that conservatives abhor.

[I] Take a tour from a native: New York magazine, in the heart of liberal country, chose as its sole national correspondent the right-wing talk-show host Tucker Carlson. During the 1990s, The New Yorker--the bible of sophisticated urban liberalism--chose as its Washington correspondents the belligerent right-winger Michael Kelly and the soft, DLC neoconservative Joe Klein. At least half of the "liberal New Republic" is actually a rabidly neoconservative magazine and has been edited in recent years by the very same Michael Kelly, as well as by the conservative liberal-hater Andrew Sullivan. The Nation has often opened its pages to liberal-haters, even among its columnists. The Atlantic Monthly--a mainstay of Boston liberalism--even chose the apoplectic Kelly as its editor, who then proceeded to add a bunch of Weekly Standard writers to its antiliberal stable. What is "liberal" Vanity Fair doing publishing a special hagiographic Annie Leibovitz portfolio of Bush Administration officials that appears, at first glance, to be designed (with the help of a Republican political consultant) to invoke notions of Greek and Roman gods? Why does the liberal New York Observer alternate National Review's Richard Brookhiser with the Joe McCarthy-admiring columnist Nicholas von Hoffman--both of whom appear alongside editorials that occasionally mimic the same positions taken downtown by the editors of the Wall Street Journal? On the web, the tabloid-style liberal website Salon gives free rein to the McCarthyite impulses of both Sullivan and David Horowitz. The neoliberal Slate also regularly publishes both Sullivan and Christopher Caldwell of The Weekly Standard, and has even opened its "pages" to such conservative evildoers as Charles Murray and Elliott Abrams.

It goes on...

What Liberal Media?
Eric Alterman

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030224/alterman2

[RandomGuy]

Myth: The U.S. has a liberal media.

Fact: The media are being increasingly monopolized by parent corporations with pro-corporate or conservative agendas.



Summary

The U.S. media are rapidly being monopolized by a dwindling number of parent corporations, all of whom have conservative economic agendas. The media are also critically dependent upon corporations for advertising. As a result, the news almost completely ignores corporate crime, as well as pro-labor and pro-consumer issues. Surveys of journalists show that the majority were personally liberal in the 1980s, but today they are centrists, with more conservatives than liberals on economic issues. However, no study has proven that they give their personal bias to the news. On the other hand, the political spectrum of pundits -- who do engage in noisy editorializing -- leans heavily to the right. The most extreme example of this is talk radio, where liberals are almost nonexistent. The Fairness Doctrine was designed to prevent one-sided bias in the media by requiring broadcasters to air opposing views. It once enjoyed the broad support of both liberals and conservatives. But now that the media have become increasingly owned and controlled by corporations, conservatives defiantly oppose the Fairness Doctrine. This is probably the best proof that the media's bias is conservative, not liberal.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm

[Extra Stout]

:spin
Pat Robertson also said that Ariel Sharon's mortal illness was punishment from God for Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, that 9/11 was punishment from God for America's tolerance of homosexuality, and that he personally prayed a hurricane away from the North Carolina coast.

Your example proves my point.

[Extra Stout]

RG, the media is definitely pro-corporate, but that is not the same thing as conservative.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447

IV. CONCLUSION: BEYOND THE "LIBERAL MEDIA" MYTH

This survey shows that it is a mistake to accept the conservative claim that journalists are to the left of the public.. There appear to be very few national journalists with left views on economic questions like corporate power and trade—issues that may well matter more to media owners and advertisers than social issues like gay rights and affirmative action. The larger "liberal media" myth has been maintained, in part, by the well-funded flow of conservative rhetoric that selectively highlights journalists' personal views while downplaying news content. It also has been maintained by diverting the spotlight away from economic issues and placing it instead on social issues. In reality, though, most members of the powerful Washington press corps identify themselves as centrist in both of these areas. It is true, as conservative critics have publicized, that the minority of journalists not in the "center" are more likely to identify as having a "left" orientation when it comes to social issues.

However, it is also true that the minority of journalists not in the "center" are more likely to identify as having a "right" orientation when it comes to economic issues. Indeed, these economic policy views are often to the right of public opinion. When our attention is drawn to this fact, one of the central elements of the conservative critique of the media is exposed to be merely sleight of hand.

This illusion has not been exposed here merely to replace it with an equally false mirror image of the conservative critique. Painting journalists as the core of the "conservative media" does not do justice to the complexity of the situation. Like many profit-sector professionals journalists tend to hold "liberal" social views and "conservative" economic views. Most of all, though, they can be broadly described as centrists. This adherence to the middle is consistent with news outlets that tend to repeat conventional wisdom and ignore serious alternative analyses. This too often leaves citizens with policy "debates" grounded in the shared assumptions of those in positions of power.

Which brings us back to the conservative critique. It is based on the propositions that: (1) journalists' views are to the left of the general public, and (2) that these views influence the news content that they produce. Having now exposed the first point for the myth that it is, we are left with the issue of personal views influencing news content.

There are two important responses to this claim. First, it is sources, not journalists, who are allowed to express their views in the conventional model of "objective" journalism. Therefore, we learn much more about the political orientation of news content by looking at sourcing patterns rather than journalists' personal views. As this survey shows, it is government officials and business representatives to whom journalists "nearly always" turn when covering economic policy. Labor representatives and consumer advocates were at the bottom of the list. This is consistent with earlier research on sources. For example, analysts from the centrist Brookings Institution and right-wing think thanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute are those most quoted in mainstream news accounts; left-wing think tanks are often invisible. When it comes to sources, "liberal bias" is nowhere to be found.

Second, we must not forget that journalists do not work in a vacuum. It is crucial to remember the important role of institutional context in setting the broad parameters for the news process. Businesses are not in the habit of producing products that contradict their fundamental economic interests. The large corporations that are the major commercial media in this country—not surprisingly—tend to favor style and substance which is consonant with their corporate interests; as do their corporate advertisers.

It is here, at the structural level, that the fundamental ground rules of news production are set. Of course, working journalists sometimes succeed in temporarily challenging some of those rules and boundaries. But ultimately, if they are to succeed and advance in the profession for any length of time, they must adapt to the ground rules set by others—regardless of their own personal views.

[RandomGuy]

Logical Fallacy

Another way to illustrate the fallacy of the “liberal media” argument is to hypothesize that a survey of editorial workers at, say, Murdoch’s New York Post would find that most editorial employees voted Democratic – not an unreasonable assumption for professionals living in New York City – and a minority voted Republican.

Under the logic of using how journalists voted to determine the bias of the company where they work, such a survey would “prove” that the New York Post was a liberal newspaper dominated by pro-Democratic articles. But it’s a decidedly conservative newspaper bristling with pro-Republican commentary.

The reason is simple: the woman writing obits or the guy doing the copy editing or the reporter covering the police beat – the working stiffs who may have voted Democratic – have only marginal influence over the newspaper’s slant. The content – and especially editorial opinions – are determined in the corporate offices by top editors and executives who report back to Murdoch.

Given the conservative bias among senior news executives, lower-level editorial employees also understand that critical articles about Bush and other favored Republicans carry extra risk. So smart employees tend to do the opposite – write stories that are more likely to get positive attention from the boss – a natural survival instinct that helps explain why journalists, who were so eager to bash Clinton and Gore, now would fawn over Bush. [For an example of how this pattern worked in Central America coverage in the 1980s, see Robert Parry's 1998 story, "In Search of the Liberal Media."]


http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/123102a.html

[Extra Stout]

RG, basically correct. On corporate issues, pretty much all media are on the right (which makes sense since they are run by major corporations, though it isn't very good for the republic). On fiscal and social issues, TV and print media are on the left.

[RandomGuy]

Please pardon my cut and pasting. Others have delved into the Liberal Media myth in much further detail than I.


I will simply say again that the persistance of this liberal media myth is good evidence of how effective conservative propaganda is, and that should really concern us all.

Aggie was concerned that the major networks and CNN always "bag on Bush".

1) The "bagging" isn't as severe as you seem to think, and I would challenge you to prove otherwise.
2) All networks/media have bagged on EVERY president at one time or another. I am old enough to remember a lot of the bagging on Carter (it should suprise no one that I watched news with my parents at a young age :lol ), as well as Clinton.

Going farther back before TV, I am sure that every president going all the way back to Washington, has seen things that were unflattering in print.

Quite honestly, I think the Liberal Media myth has actually meant that this president has gotten even more of a "free pass" than any other, and THAT is downright dangerous.

[RandomGuy]

RG, the media is definitely pro-corporate, but that is not the same thing as conservative.


heh, bingo. See the posted summary below your post.

[RandomGuy]

RG, basically correct. On corporate issues, pretty much all media are on the right (which makes sense since they are run by major corporations, though it isn't very good for the republic). On fiscal and social issues, TV and print media are on the left.

"the left" or simply agreeing with the majority of americans?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Well damn, why form my own conclusions from what's coming out of their mouths when I could read some bullshit cut and paste by Random Guy.

Thanks for reading for yourself, or presenting your own thoughts. You're just as bad as Dan and boutons.

[Extra Stout]

"the left" or simply agreeing with the majority of americans?
No, on the left. I've posted the research before. On a scale from 1-100, where 1 is Dennis Kucinich and 100 is Marilyn Musgrave, most TV and print outlets score 40-45, with CBS as the left-wing outlier at 36. FOX News is around 58 or so. NPR and PBS, somewhat surprisingly, are straight down the middle.

Right-wing talk radio probably would be 60-70.

[Ocotillo]

Right-wing talk radio probably would be 60-70.

I listen to a lot of right wing talk radio because I am in my car a lot and I prefer to listen to talk stations. This week I was in Midland/Odessa and they had a local show on that I was catching while I was in and out of the car and that particular show had to be a 110 on your scale. :lol

The host was trying to talk about Elvis but the callers would call in and froth about Hillary Clinton so he gave up for the most part on Elvis and started bashing Hillary too. A caller said she wanted to allow the U.N. to take our guns and not only did the host let it go, he agreed that was the case.

Then he and another caller started speculating about the who would run against Hillary in '08 (she already has the nomination sewn up in case you didn't know) and the host said right now it looks like John McCain. The caller said "Gawd I hope not, he's nothing but a liberal. He ain't no republican."

Oh yeah, they love the high oil prices out there as it helps their local economy and the rest of the nation whining about high energy costs are just a bunch of socialist elitists.

It was almost as funny as the Colbert Report.

[Extra Stout]

I listen to a lot of right wing talk radio because I am in my car a lot and I prefer to listen to talk stations. This week I was in Midland/Odessa and they had a local show on that I was catching while I was in and out of the car and that particular show had to be a 110 on your scale.
What you described sounds like 80, tops. 100 would be people who believe the Bible should be the standard for interpreting the Constitution, who support bombing abortion clinics while people are in them, who think sex outside of wedlock should be a crime, and who think killing 1.1 billion Muslims is the best way to solve terrorism.

The actual ideological landscape out there probably maps like this onto your mind:

0-----10-----20-----30-----40----50---60--70-8090100

You don't realize how many people have beliefs that you consider beyond the pale on the right, so your conception of the middle is skewed leftward. What you think is the top of the bell curve is probably actually around the 40th percentile.

There is a natural tendency for people to assume their views are relatively moderate, no matter where they actually land on the political spectrum.

[RandomGuy]

Well damn, why form my own conclusions from what's coming out of their mouths when I could read some bullshit cut and paste by Random Guy.

Thanks for reading for yourself, or presenting your own thoughts. You're just as bad as Dan and boutons.

See post #61.

Are you dismissing what was presented out of hand because you have any reason or concrete proof that contravenes it?

There was actually a neutral, scientific survey given in that cut and paste. Did you read that?

I think that the evidence presented that favors the "liberal media" idea is far outweighed by the evidence that disproves that idea.

Your instant dismissal and the rude way in which you phrased it puts you much closer to what you claim Dan and Boutons to be than I am.

[Extra Stout]

There was actually a neutral, scientific survey given in that cut and paste. Did you read that?
FAIR did not do a neutral, scientific study. First of all, FAIR is not neutral. They are a liberal activist organization, sort of a counterweight to Accuracy in Media.

Neither was their study scientific. They devised a rationale for why the media is not liberal that sounds convincing to certain kinds of people, which makes it about as scientific as creation science.

If the key component of liberalism to you is resistance to the corporate agenda for America, then yes the media is right-wing. Otherwise, sorry, you're wrong. The media might not be as liberal as you are, but it is left of center.

[RandomGuy]

FAIR did not do a neutral, scientific study. First of all, FAIR is not neutral. They are a liberal activist organization, sort of a counterweight to Accuracy in Media.

Neither was their study scientific. They devised a rationale for why the media is not liberal that sounds convincing to certain kinds of people, which makes it about as scientific as creation science.

If the key component of liberalism to you is resistance to the corporate agenda for America, then yes the media is right-wing. Otherwise, sorry, you're wrong. The media might not be as liberal as you are, but it is left of center.


Did you read the study?

[Extra Stout]

Did you read the study?

As written, FAIR itself chose the ideological label for each think tank, rather than devising a methodology for normalization, such as subsequent studies have done. This makes their entire line of reasoning circular.

[RandomGuy]

As written, FAIR itself chose the ideological label for each think tank, rather than devising a methodology for normalization, such as subsequent studies have done. This makes their entire line of reasoning circular.

Did you read the whole study?

[Extra Stout]

Did you read the whole study?
1) I am not disputing any of the corporate bias paragraphs, except for the citing of think tanks, which is flawed for the reasons I listed.

2) The study's own data shows that over three times as many journalists self-describe as liberal than conservative.

The self-description of "centrist" does not delineate left-centrists or right-centrists, nor does it normalize the self-descriptions against any objective measure. People who are quite liberal or conservative can assume their own views are centrist.

Even besides all that, based upon the fuzzy data provided in the study, it is clear that a normal distribution of journalistic ideology would have its peak left of center of social issues, and slightly to the right on economic issues, thus validating what I already said.

But let's be clear: that study did not do any kind of legitimate statistical analysis.

3) The study claims that there are more conservative pundits than liberal pundits in America, and to back this up provides a list of 24 pundits, 14 of which are conservative, and 3 of which are liberal. The inherent fallacy should be evident to a 9-year-old.

Hint: I think there are maybe a few more than 3 liberal columnists in the United States, and perhaps more than 24 overall.

4) The study completely glosses over the liberal leanings of reporters, telling us that since they are reporting "hard news," there could not possibly be any partisanship imparted to their work.

I'll leave it to you to decide whether that point is a result of mere stupidity or of duplicity.

5) The next argument is that corporate media simply will not support liberal talk shows. Let's now run an experiment:
Hypothesis: Liberals would listen to a liberal talk show if only it were available.
Experiment: Air America
Conclusion: No, they won't.

So much for their "scientific" study.

And of course we see corporate media like Comedy Central suppressing left-leaning political humor shows that otherwise would be wildly successful. :rolleyes

Actual studies that are not complete loads of crap promulgated by partisan activism outlets determined that the reason the right-wing dominates talk radio is because of demographics. Conservative men are more likely than other groups to have jobs that involve a long commute, during which they could listen to talk radio. And, they are more likely to want to listen to talk radio as opposed to music.

So there, I've now reviewed the entire study and feel it can be cast aside as utterly invalid.

[RandomGuy]

1) I am not disputing any of the corporate bias paragraphs, except for the citing of think tanks, which is flawed for the reasons I listed.

2) The study's own data shows that over three times as many journalists self-describe as liberal than conservative.

The self-description of "centrist" does not delineate left-centrists or right-centrists, nor does it normalize the self-descriptions against any objective measure. People who are quite liberal or conservative can assume their own views are centrist.

Even besides all that, based upon the fuzzy data provided in the study, it is clear that a normal distribution of journalistic ideology would have its peak left of center of social issues, and slightly to the right on economic issues, thus validating what I already said.

But let's be clear: that study did not do any kind of legitimate statistical analysis.

3) The study claims that there are more conservative pundits than liberal pundits in America, and to back this up provides a list of 24 pundits, 14 of which are conservative, and 3 of which are liberal. The inherent fallacy should be evident to a 9-year-old.

Hint: I think there are maybe a few more than 3 liberal columnists in the United States, and perhaps more than 24 overall.

4) The study completely glosses over the liberal leanings of reporters, telling us that since they are reporting "hard news," there could not possibly be any partisanship imparted to their work.

I'll leave it to you to decide whether that point is a result of mere stupidity or of duplicity.

5) The next argument is that corporate media simply will not support liberal talk shows. Let's now run an experiment:
Hypothesis: Liberals would listen to a liberal talk show if only it were available.
Experiment: Air America
Conclusion: No, they won't.

So much for their "scientific" study.

And of course we see corporate media like Comedy Central suppressing left-leaning political humor shows that otherwise would be wildly successful. :rolleyes

Actual studies that are not complete loads of crap promulgated by partisan activism outlets determined that the reason the right-wing dominates talk radio is because of demographics. Conservative men are more likely than other groups to have jobs that involve a long commute, during which they could listen to talk radio. And, they are more likely to want to listen to talk radio as opposed to music.

So there, I've now reviewed the entire study and feel it can be cast aside as utterly invalid.

Thank you. I would tend to agree about the study. My charactorization of it as being scientific was incorrect.

I would say however that conservative talking heads collectively have waaaay more influence than all the liberal talking heads put together.

I would also say that the conservative message is waaay more coordinated than the liberals. One picks up a talking point from the current administration and with astonishing speed that talking point makes it out and is parrotted ad infinitum.

[Extra Stout]

Thank you. I would tend to agree about the study. My charactorization of it as being scientific was incorrect.

I would say however that conservative talking heads collectively have waaaay more influence than all the liberal talking heads put together.

I would also say that the conservative message is waaay more coordinated than the liberals. One picks up a talking point from the current administration and with astonishing speed that talking point makes it out and is parrotted ad infinitum.
The coordination of right-wing communication far exceeds that of the left, true. Write Howard Dean a note and ask him what he plans to do to change that.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Are you dismissing what was presented out of hand because you have any reason or concrete proof that contravenes it?

There was actually a neutral, scientific survey given in that cut and paste. Did you read that?

I think that the evidence presented that favors the "liberal media" idea is far outweighed by the evidence that disproves that idea.

Your instant dismissal and the rude way in which you phrased it puts you much closer to what you claim Dan and Boutons to be than I am

Fucking A. Tell you what, I'll go start making transcripts of CNN and MSNBC.

Concrete proof? I can tune in for five minutes and hear it with my own two ears. I'm sorry I don't have some conservative think tank study to back me up on this, but my personal observations of the commentary on those networks is at least as credible as your liberal little "FAIR" study.

But you know what? You're right. When Lou Dobbs is calling for the impeachment of President Bush for being a liar about Iraq on CNN, the dude is obviously being fair and impartial :rolleyes

[Nbadan]

If one wants to seriously study why American politics has become so partisan and polarized in recent decades, they need look no further than the M$M. However, studies show that both Liberals and Conservatives want their news presented in a prospective in which they agree, whether its real or spin. FAUX News is the Conservative M$M, of that there is little doubt, but there is really no real Liberal media in the U.S., certainly not one that comes close to the liberalness of the BBC. CNN may have Lou Dobbs, but they also have Glenn Beck and Wolf Blitzer is hardly a flaming liberal, in fact, Wolfe Blitzer is hardly anything.

[Nbadan]

Anyone remember when FAUX News won a whistle-blower case based on a activist-Judges legal ruling that news could be fabricated...

Reporters Blow Whistle on FOX News (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzu9M6dUCac&mode=related&search=)

[sabar]

A popular debate always arises from this question:

Should the media be responsible for fair reporting or should the audience be responsible for finding the truth themselves?

I find it a lot easier to do things myself than wait for FOX and CNN to become totally perfectly moderate and fair. Just get news from multiple sources and filter out all the biased trash.

Should the media be responsible? Yeah, but that'll happen when we have peace on earth.

[jochhejaam]

A popular debate always arises from this question:

Should the media be responsible for fair reporting or should the audience be responsible for finding the truth themselves?

I find it a lot easier to do things myself than wait for FOX and CNN to become totally perfectly moderate and fair. Just get news from multiple sources and filter out all the biased trash.

Should the media be responsible? Yeah, but that'll happen when we have peace on earth.
Present the news as it happens, then put the spin on it. We all have biases so there's nothing wrong with coming across as being supportive of your preferred political party or position.
The problem I have is when they present news they know is false as fact, i.e., the Dan Rather episode, Reuters photoshopping, the NYTimes plagiarizing columnist, Gore's pack of Global Warming lies documentary, etc. (sorry, can't think of any instances of conservative wrongdoing on that level :lol )

Some semblance of fairness and balance, like Fox News, that's all I ask.

[exstatic]

Some semblance of fairness and balance, like Fox News, that's all I ask.
:lol X billions

Faux news is the mouthpiece for the NeoCon movement. The BEST that could be said is that they are the COUNTER-balance to the rest, but they are in NO WAY balanced in their coverage.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Look, it's pretty obvious Fox News is skewed to the right.

But trying to assert that CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC are centrist in their view points is just as big a joke as anyone saying Fox is fair.

I have no problem with Fox being skewed to the right, it's nice to have someone balance out the liberal rhetoric from the other big 5 news channels.

All you liberals need to just admit the fact that those channels are biased, instead of holding up "studies" by liberal think tanks to try and argue impartiality.

[Nbadan]

Speaking of Lou Dobbs...

Nightly Nativism


On May 1 the nationwide boycott billed as "A Day Without Immigrants" was all over the evening news. ABC's World News Tonight reported that "more than a million people took to the streets in thirty cities," part of "a new wave of protests against legislation that would increase the penalties for being in the US illegally." On CBS, "they left their jobs and took to the streets to show us what America would be like without millions of immigrant workers." On Fox, "illegal immigrants and their allies took to streets across America...in an effort to show their economic importance to the country."

But on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, it was a different story. "Hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens and their supporters today failed in their attempt to shut down most of our cities to support amnesty for all illegal aliens," the network's 6 pm news anchor reported that evening. Dobbs elaborated in his online column: "It is no accident that they chose May 1 as their day of demonstration and boycott. It is the worldwide day of commemorative demonstrations by various socialist, communist and even anarchic organizations.... No matter which flag demonstrators and protesters carry today, their leadership is showing its true colors to all who will see."

You might expect that sort of McCarthyesque description from Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh or some other famously right-wing provocateur on Fox or talk-radio. But Lou Dobbs, on CNN? These days, the network once pilloried by conservatives as a leading voice of the "liberal media" is offering an expansive platform to the nation's leading spokesman for anti-immigration hardliners. Night after night, under the rousing headline "Broken Borders," the distinguished-looking 61-year-old instructs his growing audience that illegal immigrants import deadly diseases, rampant crime and international terrorism; they live off welfare, destroy public schools and burden hospitals; what's more, most haven't even learned to speak English. Add that they're foot soldiers sent by the Mexican government to "reconquer" the Southwest, and by the end of the hour, we have seen the enemy--and he's a Spanish-speaking immigrant. Despite the grave threat, Dobbs declares, our lawmakers are doing nothing about it. Thus Dobbs branded the recent bipartisan Senate reform bill, designed to allow more immigrants to work here legally while also securing the borders, "The Amnesty Agenda"--a "pathetic sham" that would make a "mockery" of the American people.

CONTINUED BELOW
Dobbs's hysteria and jingoism are now notorious. He's been ridiculed by Jon Stewart on The Daily Show for calling for the abolition of "ethnocentric" holidays that involve waving other nations' flags (thus eliminating St. Patrick's Day); by Andy Borowitz, who wrote in Newsweek that President Bush had decided to move Dobbs to the Mexican border instead of 6,000 National Guard troops; and by the hosts of a Los Angeles radio show, who recently offered a cash prize to the first illegal immigrant mother to name her baby Lou Dobbs.

Much, much more on Dobbs: The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060828/eviatar)

[Extra Stout]

Nbadan is correct. Lou Dobbs is an unhinged paleocon-turned-populist, not a liberal.

You can only give a guy so much credit for owning AHF, though. That is about as difficult as brushing one's teeth.

[smeagol]

Some semblance of fairness and balance, like Fox News, that's all I ask.
:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

C'mon joch. Be serious!

[David Bowie]

CNN is probably the most left, anti-Iserael,anti-America channel out there. If Cnn ever happens to be on, I feel like I am watching aljazeera.

[jochhejaam]

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

C'mon joch. Be serious!
I was speaking with a bit of humor in mind when I posted that. However, I don't consider reporting with a pro-American slant to be unfair or unbalanced as I am an American citizen. I'll let the comment stand as is.

I'm not referring to the Hannity's and O'Reilly's, just the news.





btw smeagol, any comment on post #59 from the "Possible key human evolution genes identified" thread? Don't post it here if you do :lol )

[ShackO]

NBADAN don't you understand. the neocons are fighting your god hating, gay loving agenda for you. If it weren't for republicans who the hell is going to nuke iran after they nuke us?.............................Islam is at war with a hedonistic, pagan, queer loving, porn watching, tattooed America and in a war the righteous usaully prevail.....ask hitler.


LMAO!!!!!!!!

And with a little truth to it…. I thought they hated us cause we are free??? lol

[gtownspur]

Nbadan is correct. Lou Dobbs is an unhinged paleocon-turned-populist, not a liberal.

You can only give a guy so much credit for owning AHF, though. That is about as difficult as brushing one's teeth.


You're not an intellectual juggernaut yourself either, but showing an example of Lou Dobbs hardline policy on immigration itself does not make Lou Dobbs paleo conservative, like supporting the american presence in Iraq makes Hillary a marxist liberal turned neocon.

Show me a straight issue liberal who does not stray from his ideology outside of Dan.

It's nice to know we have a Beckett baseball card quality rating system that get's to promote whose in the know and whose not, passing as Extra Stout.

[Extra Stout]

You're not an intellectual juggernaut yourself either, but showing an example of Lou Dobbs hardline policy on immigration itself does not make Lou Dobbs paleo conservative, like supporting the american presence in Iraq makes Hillary a marxist liberal turned neocon.

Show me a straight issue liberal who does not stray from his ideology outside of Dan.

It's nice to know we have a Beckett baseball card quality rating system that get's to promote whose in the know and whose not, passing as Extra Stout.


Characterizations of his economic stance are way off base, asserts Dobbs, who describes himself as a lifelong Republican


Dobbs is a lifelong Republican


Dobbs is a Republican, he's just not a Bush Republican

Let's see here...
1) Protectionist
2) Anti-immigration
3) Critical of US foreign policy towards Israel
4) Disenchanted with the President

I guess by your definition Pat Buchanan is also a liberal.

[gtownspur]

Let's see here...
1) Protectionist
2) Anti-immigration
3) Critical of US foreign policy towards Israel
4) Disenchanted with the President

I guess by your definition Pat Buchanan is also a liberal.


I have no oppinion on Pat Buchannan's political orientation since i would never vote for a paranoid mexophobe whose just a dishonest self served ass like him wether he was paleo, military, country club, social, or reagan conservative.

As to Lou Dobbs, First of all my point is that Liberals can approve of stingy immigration laws and be xenophobic too. Now, i didn't give my oppinion on what Lou Dobbs was.

What's funny is that NBAdan's post didn't disprove AHF's post of CNN's politcal bias and coverage because Nbadan's post was just about Lou Dobbs bias, and AHF's was about CNN's coverage as a whole network. But you're to busy trying to come out as Most Valuable Poster-Pseudo Intellectual of the YEar, That you hopped on Dan's nuts so quick that you forgot that both that Dan's argument was a faulty logic argument trying to discredit AHf's premise that CNN leans left.

But like Dan's logic goes so does yours, and so it is that if Lou Dobbs leans right, thus CNN leans right.


Well i guess you can use the same argument for Geraldo, Van Susteren and the FNC as being liberal because those tv shows are left leaning. But That would make you seem even more idiotic.

[Extra Stout]

:lmao That was really something. I like the attempt to use logic there.

Learn to read the entire thread, not just adjacent posts, before commenting about the posts, gculo.

[gtownspur]

:lmao That was really something. I like the attempt to use logic there.

Learn to read the entire thread, not just adjacent posts, before commenting about the posts, gculo.

I've read this entire thread dipshit. ANd it was at first about NbaDan making light of the kidnapped FNC personell, and then it degenerated into a media bias shit flinging fest, and then NbaDan uttered Lou Dobbs, and you coddled NbaDan's nuts to poke fun at AHF because you really do have an inferiority complex.

[Ocotillo]

^^ Both Extra Stout and Gtown have a Guinness avatar. Hmmmm

[gtownspur]

^^ Both Extra Stout and Gtown have a Guinness avatar. Hmmmm

But only one has issues. :lol

But i will give credit to Extra Stout becuase i believe he first had the Guinness Label. He's still a pile of crap.

[Extra Stout]

I've read this entire thread dipshit. ANd it was at first about NbaDan making light of the kidnapped FNC personell, and then it degenerated into a media bias shit flinging fest, and then NbaDan uttered Lou Dobbs, and you coddled NbaDan's nuts to poke fun at AHF because you really do have an inferiority complex.
If you claim to have read the whole thread, then you must have reading comprehension issues. Is English your first or second langauge?

[smeagol]

^^ Both Extra Stout and Gtown have a Guinness avatar. Hmmmm
ES' has more colors

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Nbadan is correct. Lou Dobbs is an unhinged paleocon-turned-populist, not a liberal.

You can only give a guy so much credit for owning AHF, though. That is about as difficult as brushing one's teeth.


Yeah, because Lou Dobbs wants tougher border security and immigration reform, that automatically makes him a Bush supporter and automatically makes CNN a bastion of right wing reporting.

:rolleyes

[Extra Stout]

Yeah, because Lou Dobbs wants tougher border security and immigration reform, that automatically makes him a Bush supporter and automatically makes CNN a bastion of right wing reporting.

:rolleyes
Well, no he's not a Bush supporter at all; he dislikes Bush intensely.

But neither is he a liberal, so he can't be taken as an example of the biased liberal media. There are plenty of other good examples of that... say, Anderson Cooper, Katie Couric, pretty much every "objective" news reporter, etc.

You could say Dobbs is unfair and unbalanced, but you can't say he's liberal any more than Lew Rockwell is liberal.

As I laid out in my pedantic exchange with RG, most of the mainstream media is quantifiably center-left, except on economic issues, where it is strongly pro-corporation. I also demonstrated the biases, omissions, and misleading elements in the "think tank" study he presented.

So there is no need to argue against me since I have carried your own argument. I will apologize for the "teeth-brushing" remark which was unnecessary.

[gtownspur]

If you claim to have read the whole thread, then you must have reading comprehension issues. Is English your first or second langauge?


What does it matter? You have no point in what you are saying, since what you and nbadan are saying has nothing to do with the beggining topic of this thread, and the whole subject has been about media bias of large networks as a whole, and not individual personalities. Go inject your stupidity in the club forum and opine about mundane celebrity gossip because that's all your worth.

[Nbadan]

Yeah, because Lou Dobbs wants tougher border security and immigration reform, that automatically makes him a Bush supporter and automatically makes CNN a bastion of right wing reporting.

It doesn't make him a Liberal either and that's the whole point! Dobbs is a whore.

[RandomGuy]

Fucking A. Tell you what, I'll go start making transcripts of CNN and MSNBC.

Concrete proof? I can tune in for five minutes and hear it with my own two ears. I'm sorry I don't have some conservative think tank study to back me up on this, but my personal observations of the commentary on those networks is at least as credible as your liberal little "FAIR" study.

But you know what? You're right. When Lou Dobbs is calling for the impeachment of President Bush for being a liar about Iraq on CNN, the dude is obviously being fair and impartial :rolleyes

What standard would you hold for CNN to be considered neutral?

I would be willing to bet a LOT of money that CNN is far more moderate than anything you listen to.

[smeagol]

Sad day for Dan

[Extra Stout]

Sad day for Dan
It's a mixed bag... Hurricane Ernesto might hit Florida, and that would make him happy.

[TDMVPDPOY]

when i watch the media or news, i always stay clear of one of the channels that rupert murdoch owns or has an interest in it, after seein that documentary how fox was manipulating the ppl with its propoganda feeding programs or news it only discloses.

expecially when its election time......

[ChumpDumper]

In an attempt ot save face, the kidnappers "converted" the hostages to Islam.

[Obstructed_View]

when i watch the media or news, i always stay clear of one of the channels that rupert murdoch owns or has an interest in it, after seein that documentary how fox was manipulating the ppl with its propoganda feeding programs or news it only discloses.

expecially when its election time......
Funny that the same people fail to cast the same suspicion on a neighboring network founded by Ted Turner, or even one where the lead anchor and his producer conspired to smear the president just before the election.

[smeagol]

It's a mixed bag... Hurricane Ernesto might hit Florida, and that would make him happy.
:lol