mvscal's Limey brother gets over

[Smackie Chan]

Rather was certifiably off the deep end when he asked Kenneth for his frequency.

Didn't happen that way. Rather's assailants were the ones asking the question.

[Left Seater]

The real problem with news isn't the bias of those writing or researching or delivering. We can see thru that in 2 seconds. Rather it is the loss of actual news reporting. Long gone are the days of the true radio newsman.

Damn near all TV news now has some opinion poll or feedback segment. What Sally in Stockton's Facebook response is isnt news. Same thing for Tom's tweet. Nor is the poll the station conducts on their website. Just present the news and we will make our own opinion of the facts.

Perfect example was a piece that ran last night on the local CBS station. They were going down the road of "what will the new pope mean for San Antonio?" There were clips of random Catholics in downtown giving their opinion, a local Bishop, a local Priest, and the spokesperson for the economic development group. The whole piece had zero facts other than today was the last day for the current Pope. It ended with the reporter saying only time will tell what a new Pope will mean for San Antonio. The anchor then invited people to visit their website or Facebook page to weigh in with their thoughts.

WTF! Two minutes of a 23 minute 10:00pm news broadcast is speculation and an invite to give more opinion and speculation. Plus this ran before the first break.

[Smackie Chan]

What are some examples of what you (and anyone else engaged in this discussion) would consider to be unbiased and reliable sources for the "facts"?

Well, Smackie, I did some research (i.e., Googled) for the answers, and found this: http://blog.debate.org/2012/08/24/a-que ... s-sources/

Is there universal agreement that the sources cited are unbiased? Obviously not, based on the comments that follow the story. Who, then, is the unbiased, independent arbiter of what constitutes unbiased reporting?

[Roger_the_Shrubber]

The Founders absolutely intended the 1st Amendment to protect speech you might find vile or repugnant. They were quite explicit on that point.

I agree. Free speech is just that. The Nazis and KKK have every right to preach their hatred. I don't have to agree with what they're preaching but I'll stand up for their right to say it....no matter how vile or politically incorrect it might be. That's how a free society has to work if it is truly free.

I agree. And I have the right to drive through them, making them jump into a river. I hate Illinois nazis!

Sincerely,

Elwood Blues

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Let's say Jsc did respond with facts to back up his takes. Those facts would need to have some source. If the facts supported his takes, he'd be hammered for reliance on biased sources, and likely (or possibly) be countered with facts that come from some other source, which would be bashed by his side as being biased in the other direction. Back & forth it goes, each side accusing the other of dependence on unreliable sources based on respective political leanings, with nothing ever being resolved to everyone's (or anyone's) satisfaction.

That's not 88's objective.

His objective is to keep yanking the football away every time Jsc Brown goes for the kick.



No matter how much compromise Jsc bends to, 88 will keep re-framing the parameters of debate. He's not interested in engaging his opponent equitably.
Ipso facto, Chip has already lost the battle before it even begins.



This is pure Hegelian logic on 88's part. It warms the hearts of all Leninists.

[mvscal]

I used them (the TSA) as an example of censorship or security control that is abused and goes to far. Does that make it a bad thing or a necessary evil? Or something in-between?

Are you that far gone that you actually have to ask? Censorship and police state tactics which go too far are "bad things." Always. No exceptions. The "moderate and sensible" response to such tactics should be immediate violence.

As to Dan Rather and Matthews...you're right. But in their case, those were individual choices.

No, they aren't. They're representative of a systemic, across the board bias.

And I have to assume what you're referring to with NBC, since you didn't specify. If you're talking about their apparent "rah-rah" cheerleading for Obama as an example, you are right.

Well, of course there is that. Then there is the editing of the Zimmerman 911 call in an attempt to smear him as a racist. Oh yes, and the attempt to smear NASCAR fans as anti-Muslim bigots. I could go on, but I believe the point is made. When was the last time Fox News ever did anything that scummy and dishonest?

Chuck Todd, political director and chief White House correspondent at NBC News, broke ranks (sort of) with his fellow journalists. In an interview with Politico, Todd said, “To me, the ideological bias in the media really hasn’t been there in a long time. But what is there that people mistake for ideological bias is geographic bias. It’s seeing everything through the lens of New York and Washington.”

Yes, I understand that Chuck is having trouble seeing daylight what with his head stuck so far up his ass. You share the same problem.

But Dan Rather was at one time, a well respected news anchor, and Matthews and the NBC examples are the exceptions to the rule, rather than the norm.

You're assbackwards.

In 2008, Oshitskin promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term. He tripled it instead. Where is the mainstream media on that? How was that not a central issue in the campaign? How is he not hammered with that every single day when he goes out and blames Republicans for the puny, insignificant reductions in spending rate in HIS sequestration plan??

In 2008, Oshitskin promised the most transparent administration in history. Instead we get closed door negotiations on issues of tremendous public importance. The largest, most expensive piece of legislation in US history is passed with a parliamentary gimmick to avoid debate and his flunky, Nancy Pelosi, is sent out to scold the American people and state that, "We will have to pass the law to find out what's in it." Does that sound like the right answer to you? Where was the MSM on that? That was one of the most stunningly arrogant and irresponsible things I've ever heard in my life from a public "servant." Of course she said it because she knew she could get away with it. Her kneepadders in the MSM would ignore it and/or minimize it.

The Democratic controlled Senate has not passed a budget in four years now. Where is the MSM on that? Why is that not the first question Harry Reid is asked everytime he steps in front of a camera. Four fucking years without a budget. Sound like the right answer to you? Is that what you call responsible governance?

Benghazi. A United States ambassador and three other State Dept employees were murdered and a secure diplomatic facility was looted. This was an open and shut case of inexcusable negligence running up to the attack, total indifference during the attack and a media blitz of deliberate lies for a month after the event. The official response from the Secretary of State on this complete clusterfuck? "What difference does it make?" Where is the MSM on this? Well, they're busy puffing her up as the frontrunner in 2016 that's where they are.

I could do this all night long. Anyone who, by now, doesn't understand that the mainstream media is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party is either a fucking liar or a fucking idiot.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

...the Democratic Party...

Another "War Party" in service of the rich.

WGAF

[Truman]

Stunning. Sweet Lord. Rack mvscal.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Obama's signature legislation thus far has been Obamacare. I do not think anyone would disagree with that.

I would say it's the bailouts.

But hey...It's your ball, your court. Define the debate in a way that best suits your argument.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

I'm talking about the bank bailouts now...by Obama.

Obamacare is a bailout of the insurance industry. You keep trying to paint Obama as Che Guevara incarnate.

Puuuhhhleeeze.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Is your ass so chaffed that you can't admit that Obama is Wall Street's boy?

[Truman]

Obama's signature legislation thus far has been Obamacare. I do not think anyone would disagree with that.

I would say it's the bailouts.

With all due respect, tovarisch, it's Obamacare. There isn't a more vitriolic or divisive topic in America. We didn't grow up with a cradle-to-grave healthcare entitlement like you folks did. As a matter of reference, half the people in this country would argue that it isn't a function of the Fed to provide such a service (those folks being the ones that have a working understanding of our Constitution). Whether it's a good idea isn't relevent. Whether it violates the tenets of our Founding is.

Can't have it both ways, Marty. You gleefully point out daily how stupid we as a country are. Had the bailouts truly been the issue you assert, Mitt Romney would've won in an electoral landslide. The Affordable Care Act will be Obama's legacy... Or his albatross.

[Jay in Phoenix]

Rather was certifiably off the deep end when he asked Kenneth for his frequency.

Didn't happen that way. Rather's assailants were the ones asking the question.

Smackie, I'm well aware of this. The sarcasm I was implying didn't come through the way I wanted. Whatevs'...

As to mvscals response:

Are you that far gone that you actually have to ask? Censorship and police state tactics which go too far are "bad things." Always. No exceptions. The "moderate and sensible" response to such tactics should be immediate violence.

Of course they are, which is verified by my example of "groping and scanning". I'm also playing 'devils advocate' by asking the questions. You have to look at an argument from both sides before you can develop a reasonable and infomred opinion. You know this but choose to view things only from your own prejudice. That's okay to a point, as your opinions count just as much as ever other persons do. But like the saying goes, opinions are like assholes and everybody has one. What keeps your opinion somewhat checked, or occasionally flat out wrong, is the nature of your bias. At any rate, censorship and police state tactics which go too far are not just bad, they are criminal. Saying the moderate and sensible approach to these tactics should be met with violence takes us back to that pesky little anarchy thingie. Can't have it. Like T1B and its own brand of "censorship", rules and laws are in place for a reason. You can't have a civilized society without them. You can't have freedom, not real freedom, without them. This is inarguable. So save your rhetoric.

No, they aren't. They're (Rather and Matthews) representative of a systemic, across the board bias.

In a way, yes. But only if you balance the scales. You continue to site "liberal" examples but choose to conveniently ignore the faults and bias of the right-wing media. Rush Limpdick come to mind? He should. Sean Hannity continues to be over-the-top with twisted opinions. Then you have a Glen Beck or Dennis Miller. What I actually like about these two is they are not only intelligent, but funny. I don't always agree with their views, but as they ration their opinions with informed humor and aren't afraid to take potshots at the right when it's merited, and that gives them a feeling of fairness. What is the key factor here, is what they and others like them represent. Bias, but with an intellectual and honest balance. At least sometimes. You say that the bias is systemic and across the board. Not true. The examples you mention are just that...examples, not a blanket representation. Exceptions are a given.

You listed some interesting and fair issues with Benghazi and Pelosi. You accuse the mainstream media of dropping the ball on the coverage, or being indifferent. Of minimizing their coverage to deflect responsibility. Yet, not only were these stories covered, not just daily but hourly, there were plenty of media outlets who were crying out vociferously for answers. You chastise the mainstream media, or at least what you perceive as the "liberal mainstream" for wearing blinders and playing to a political bias. Some outlets did just that, some did not. Again, the point to this is that it is unfair and ridiculous to categorize the entire media under the same brand and call anyone who "doesn't understand that they (the MSM) are a propoganda arm of the Democratic Party as a fucking liar or and fucking idiot." What an utterly asinine and bullshit condemnation. Come on mvscal, your beloved FOX News is about as Republican cheerleading and Tea Bagger swinging as it gets. And they are just about the biggest player on the block. So save your dishonest rhetoric and open your fucking eyes.

This little pissing match has been fun, but we're at the point of agreeing to disagree. And I'll say something you probably don't have the guts to say. I actually do value your input and your opinions, even when I think they are way off base and completely one-sided. Or flat out wrong. You have your perspective as an informed observer. I have mine as an informed insider, at least on a local level. The biggest and most important difference between us, is that I will admit when I'm wrong or make a mistake. You never do. And everybody is wrong sometimes. Remember the old adage...in any argument or discussion, there's your side and there's my side. And somewhere in the middle lies the truth.

Balance mvscal. Learn to apply it.

Peace bro.

[mvscal]

Nope...no leftwing bias here. Just another outlier.

Andrea Mitchell Scolds Fellow Reporters: 'You Guys Let the Assault Weapons Ban Die!'

MITCHELL: Joining me now for more on that and all the other political news for our Daily Fix today - Chris Cillizza, MSNBC contributor and managing editor of PostPolitics.com and USA Today's Washington bureau chief Susan Page. Hi to both of you. Well, while I'm away you guys let the assault weapons ban, you know, die. Practically. At least Harry Reid says he's not gonna let it go forward.


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-d ... z2O8b2XHUs

Of course, just like Chris Tingle and Tavis Niqqer err Smiley, Andrea believes that the primary responsibility of journalism is the regurgitation of political propaganda.

[Cuda]

I used them (the TSA) as an example of censorship or security control that is abused and goes to far. Does that make it a bad thing or a necessary evil? Or something in-between?

Are you that far gone that you actually have to ask? Censorship and police state tactics which go too far are "bad things." Always. No exceptions. The "moderate and sensible" response to such tactics should be immediate violence.

As to Dan Rather and Matthews...you're right. But in their case, those were individual choices.

No, they aren't. They're representative of a systemic, across the board bias.

And I have to assume what you're referring to with NBC, since you didn't specify. If you're talking about their apparent "rah-rah" cheerleading for Obama as an example, you are right.

Well, of course there is that. Then there is the editing of the Zimmerman 911 call in an attempt to smear him as a racist. Oh yes, and the attempt to smear NASCAR fans as anti-Muslim bigots. I could go on, but I believe the point is made. When was the last time Fox News ever did anything that scummy and dishonest?

Chuck Todd, political director and chief White House correspondent at NBC News, broke ranks (sort of) with his fellow journalists. In an interview with Politico, Todd said, “To me, the ideological bias in the media really hasn’t been there in a long time. But what is there that people mistake for ideological bias is geographic bias. It’s seeing everything through the lens of New York and Washington.”

Yes, I understand that Chuck is having trouble seeing daylight what with his head stuck so far up his ass. You share the same problem.

But Dan Rather was at one time, a well respected news anchor, and Matthews and the NBC examples are the exceptions to the rule, rather than the norm.

You're assbackwards.

In 2008, Oshitskin promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term. He tripled it instead. Where is the mainstream media on that? How was that not a central issue in the campaign? How is he not hammered with that every single day when he goes out and blames Republicans for the puny, insignificant reductions in spending rate in HIS sequestration plan??

In 2008, Oshitskin promised the most transparent administration in history. Instead we get closed door negotiations on issues of tremendous public importance. The largest, most expensive piece of legislation in US history is passed with a parliamentary gimmick to avoid debate and his flunky, Nancy Pelosi, is sent out to scold the American people and state that, "We will have to pass the law to find out what's in it." Does that sound like the right answer to you? Where was the MSM on that? That was one of the most stunningly arrogant and irresponsible things I've ever heard in my life from a public "servant." Of course she said it because she knew she could get away with it. Her kneepadders in the MSM would ignore it and/or minimize it.

The Democratic controlled Senate has not passed a budget in four years now. Where is the MSM on that? Why is that not the first question Harry Reid is asked everytime he steps in front of a camera. Four fucking years without a budget. Sound like the right answer to you? Is that what you call responsible governance?

Benghazi. A United States ambassador and three other State Dept employees were murdered and a secure diplomatic facility was looted. This was an open and shut case of inexcusable negligence running up to the attack, total indifference during the attack and a media blitz of deliberate lies for a month after the event. The official response from the Secretary of State on this complete clusterfuck? "What difference does it make?" Where is the MSM on this? Well, they're busy puffing her up as the frontrunner in 2016 that's where they are.

I could do this all night long. Anyone who, by now, doesn't understand that the mainstream media is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party is either a fucking liar or a fucking idiot.

nevermind that piddly shit, what about Gay Marriage? Huh? Huh?... what about it? Gay marriage is what people care about, not trivia like Ben... whatever his name is. Get on the right side of history for a change. And besides, what about the Koch Brothers?

[LTS TRN 2]

Is your ass so chaffed that you can't admit that Obama is Wall Street's boy?

Obama is definitely Wall Street's boy. But how does that make his policies that of a "moderate Republican" of the 1980's? Remember, Clinton cast away Glass-Steagall. Reagan's crew put hundreds of S&L banksters in jail.

The Reagan administration was itself put into jail more than any other administration by far--plus all of the indictments and forced resignations. Face it, Reagan was a puppet (already suffering Alzheimers in his first term) and allowed unprecedented criminal subversion of the constitution and basic civil rights. He ended his disgraceful career in a witness box being grilled for serious crimes--all of which, like Jodi Arias, he claimed he couldn't remember. What did he do again that you so admire? Cut corporate tax? Cut capital gains tax? Bust unions? Invade Panama?

[LTS TRN 2]

Well I'm sure you could have pissed her off by playing that dreadful Ten Years After crap. Wow, that was bad.