myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
the big lie "the media is liberal"
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 17, 18, 19 ... 141, 142, 143  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5361

PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/251027-pat-caddell-is-no-liberal-more-proof
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bajaDean



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 947
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

keycocker wrote:
Just got a TV after many years .
I watched my first program on CNN this morning. It was an hour long special by a bald guy named Ali about misplaced consumer confidence assisting the Obama campaign. Their point was that folks are too confident in the economy and that is getting Obama votes.
Explain why the "Liberal press" is sinking this big unfair advantage for Obama. I saw his votes melting away.
My explanation is that it is accurate news that their GOP owners think folks will watch and thereby sell ads.(and make money)
Your explanation?
If you have none then how bout all that material baja presented?

The conservatives who work throughout the media could at any time have a huge hit by bringing forth the proof of media bias.
CNN conservatives like Greta van Susteren and others have moved over to fox from other networks through the years. They are insiders at CNN and elsewhere.
Where is the big expose that Fox is dreaming of showing?They have the people from the "liberal press" on payroll. I am an old time conservative who has waited for this proof for 40 years.


yes cnn is the training grounds to move onto fox. Paula Zahn, Bill Hammer, as you mention greta and so on. Note there is not one partasan liberal that has ever been there with their own show and moved on. other blatentaly partisan are nancy grace, Jack Kaffarty and so on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bajaDean



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 947
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ted koppel and the so called liberal media. Ted made his name by doing a show every night attacking Jimmy Carter. remember his count up on the hostages.

Se lets see Ted made his name of attacking a predident every day for years.
the so called liberal media was attacking the next democrat every single day with whitewater. 8 years of attacking him. and not one grand jury which it is so easy to get a grand jury to indict but with 70 million spent and two special prosecutors not one grand jury. Even the first partisan right wing prosecutor said he cound find no wrong doing. yet 8 years of right wing hate media. with tons of right wing special interest money attacking him including the trust fund kid hater richard Mellon scaife owner of the media, and funder of the paula jones lawsuit even before clinton was sworn in. That right wing trust fund kid hate..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bajaDean



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 947
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.namebase.org/news17.html
Quote:
One enterprising researcher took this 29 percent figure, and extrapolating from figures on CIA expenditures for covert operations, found that the cost of propaganda in 1978 was around $265 million and involved 2,000 personnel. Comparing this to figures for other news agencies, he concluded that the CIA "uses far more resources in its propaganda operations than any single news agency.... In fact, the CIA propaganda budget is as large as the combined budgets of Reuters, United Press International and the Associated Press."[8]

CBS took Daniel Schorr off the air after he leaked the Pike committee report. This was most likely a convenient opportunity for William Paley, chairman of CBS, who didn't approve of Schorr's interest in the network's own CIA connection. Former CBS News president Sig Mickelson, who by 1976 was president of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, said that in October 1954, Paley called him into his office for a friendly discussion with two CIA officials. Schorr mentioned this on Walter Cronkite's show, and in an op-ed piece for the New York Times (Arthur Hays Sulzberger, the late publisher of the Times, had been cozy with the CIA also).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bajaDean



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 947
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/nyregion/arthur-o-sulzberger-publisher-who-transformed-times-dies-at-86.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120930

Quote:
Mr. Sulzberger did not always appreciate the content or the tenor of the editorial page. He thought it was anti-business, especially in the 1960s and ’70s. “If you were a corporation, you were wrong, whatever you were doing,” he said. But he almost never imposed his views. Though he did nudge Mr. Oakes into retirement a year or two early, Mr. Oakes said, “I literally can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times that I had to go to bat for an editorial.” Mr. Oakes died in 2001.


Quote:
The topics might be of national importance, like the structure of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the military being a subject he cared about as a former Marine who had served in World War II and the Korean War. When he felt the boundaries of good taste had been crossed, he let the editors know it. But the notes could also be about mundane matters. In one, in 1976, he complained to A. M. Rosenthal, the executive editor, about a published recipe for cooked eel.
“Why can’t our food pages have something on them that most people like?” Mr. Sulzberger asked.


Quote:
One A. Sock letter, an unflattering take in 1979 on the National Organization for Women, brought a sharp rebuttal letter. “Mr. Sock deserves a punch,” it concluded. It was signed Gail Gregg, the publisher’s daughter-in-law at the time. Convinced his cover was blown, Mr. Sulzberger wrote almost no A. Sock letters again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3457

PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 11:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Saw an analysis of the two debt plans on CNN. They were responding to a non partisan group which concluded that Romneys plan was mathematicly impossible.
They agreed that the numbers were impossible.
They concluded that Obamas plan, while the math is possible, makes unfounded assumptions and was not going to work either.
Why would they undercut their master in these ways so close to the election?
I also saw the same news about that nonpartisan assessment of Romneys plan on the news on Fox. The newscaster said that the Romney plan made perfect math. He said you just had to change most of the ideas and numbers around from those proposed and all was perfect.

They felt it was unfair of the analysis to use Romneys plan when assessing Romneys plan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 5891

PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mat-ty, I will admit that I didn't watch the Caddell video when you originally posted it, but now I have. First of all, my commentary in response to your posts is based on what you say and how you say it. I don't think that anything I've said was inaccurate, so I wouldn't change a word of it.

Regarding Caddell, it's my impression that he is one angry guy that has a lot of sour grapes because the news media isn't doing what he wants them to. Admittedly, he criticizes both Democrats and Republicans, but that doesn't change the fact that he believes the media isn't taking his lead on the topics most important to him, and arguably of those funding him. That rings very clear in his dialog. He's pissed. But I have to ask myself, do I find synergy in what Caddell was ranting about? Well, no. Nevertheless, he did have the stage at Accuracy in the Media, and from what I learned, he is a fairly frequent commenter on Fox News shows, so it's not like the media is shutting him out. What I've learned over time is that everyone in the media has an agenda, and it doesn't have to be in the interest of the majority of Americans. Oh, there can be a lot of phony dialog and talking points dragged out in the name of sustaining freedom and fairness, but that doesn't make any of it true, appropriate or necessary.

Because the recent Libyan incident involving the deaths of the American ambassador and others was a notable highlight in Caddell's speech, it serves as an example just how news can be twisted and manipulated to serve an agenda. I have no doubt myself that the Libyan incident is being fully investigated by many in the US government, but just not in the manner and focus that Caddell and his supporters want. They want a pointed media trail that heaps boatloads of criticism on the Obama Administration. Isn't that what you want mat-ty?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1802
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And then we have George
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ABC's Stephanopoulos Leads Post-Debate Media Spin for Democrats

By Rich Noyes
October 02, 2012 | 08:50

Leading into tomorrow’s presidential debate, journalists are busy setting expectations for the candidates. On Sunday’s Good Morning America, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos argued that Mitt Romney is under “huge, huge” pressure: “He is behind right now. He is behind nationally, he’s behind in all of the battleground states. This is the last big audience that Mitt Romney is going to have with about four and a half weeks left to go.”

But more undecided voters will be swayed by the media’s post-debate spin about who won and who lost than by any pre-debate expectations. Reviewing the last several campaigns, MRC analysts have found a clear trend of network reporters fawning over the performance of liberal candidates, while harping on any perceived weaknesses or gaffes from conservatives.

One of the most reliable pro-Democratic pundits is none other than George Stephanpoulos — not especially surprising, given his track record as a loyal operative for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, but hardly the objective, unbiased voice touted by ABC News. MRC has documented how, in eight out of the last nine general election presidential debates (every one since he joined ABC News in 1997), Stephanopoulos has gone on his network’s airwaves to claim victory for the Democratic candidate, all in the guise of offering impartial analysis.

Stephanopoulos even called Al Gore the winner after the first debate in 2000, the one in which the Democratic candidate’s excessive sighs and rude interruptions were parodied by Saturday Night Live in a classic spoof. (SNL’s Al Gore: “Jim, I’d like to interrupt here and answer that question as if it were my turn to speak.”)

This past Sunday, previewing Wednesday’s debate, Stephanopoulos even raised the topic with Donna Brazile, who was Gore’s campaign manager that year: “I know for a fact that everyone on your team thought that he cleaned George Bush’s clock in that debate, but on mannerisms and, on the takeaway, he ended up losing.”

Of course, Stephanopoulos eagerly matched the Democratic campaign’s initially jubilant assessment of Gore’s performance.

Only after the second debate in 2000 (October 11) did Stephanopoulos see a Republican winning: “Governor Bush had a very, very strong night tonight and probably won the debate, in part because as you said, he looked so surefooted on foreign policy.” But Stephanopoulos also insisted: “Vice President Gore, no mistakes — no obvious mistakes at all. But he didn’t really get a chance to talk about his issues.”

Since that date nearly 12 years ago, Stephanopoulos has been a consistent champion for the Democrats’ presidential candidates, crowning John Kerry the winner three times in a row and doing the same for Barack Obama in 2008. Below are the quotes and attribution for clips used in the compilation video, starting with Stephanopoulos’s post-debate analysis of the 2000 presidential debates:

[You'll have to go to the link to see and read all of his "non-baised" gems.]

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2012/10/02/abcs-stephanopoulos-leads-post-debate-media-spin-democrats#ixzz28BU13VlP
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5361

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So you are so afraid of Romney losing the debate you are sandbagging ahead of time? I know he is unlikeable, but wow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bajaDean



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 947
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nw30 wrote:
And then we have George
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ABC's Stephanopoulos Leads Post-Debate Media Spin for Democrats

By Rich Noyes
October 02, 2012 | 08:50

Leading into tomorrow’s presidential debate, journalists are busy setting expectations for the candidates. On Sunday’s Good Morning America, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos argued that Mitt Romney is under “huge, huge” pressure: “He is behind right now. He is behind nationally, he’s behind in all of the battleground states. This is the last big audience that Mitt Romney is going to have with about four and a half weeks left to go.”
...............
[You'll have to go to the link to see and read all of his "non-baised" gems.]

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2012/10/02/abcs-stephanopoulos-leads-post-debate-media-spin-democrats#ixzz28BU13VlP

George S should get out of there, he is horrible.... he is paid off to be a lightweight. He will not ask the tough questions like some of the good liberals on MSNBC. We need a real partisan who is allowed to be a real partisan like others on ABC are allowed for the right.


Next he does not have his own shows, he is just a paid off yesman. Now on ABC they have diane sawyer. She is a top broadcaster and with many slots on ABC, where George is just a undering. Diane Sawyer was a partisan Nixon speechwriter.

then on ABC there is also Geoge Will. another far right politically partisan in every stupid word he utters, not to mention he is one of the most read journalists in the so called Liberal Media.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 17, 18, 19 ... 141, 142, 143  Next
Page 18 of 143

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group