The Cellar
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   FYI: how news was, and is, and will be (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=22727)

classicman 06-09-2010 08:55 AM
Yeh - better keep quiet Digr, they're lookin to get money FROM you!

Shawnee123 06-09-2010 09:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravdigr (Post 661668)
Wait a minute. I'm Christian, historically, one of the most persecuted religions on earth, ever. WHERE'S MAH CHECK?!
Of the 19 or so major religions, it certainly is ONE of the most persecuted, right up there with the other 18 or so. ;)

Happy Monkey 06-09-2010 11:13 AM
Definitely in the top hundred at least.

Shawnee123 06-09-2010 11:29 AM
Poor x-tians. Lions eatin' 'em up and all.

I would totally seek compensation from the lions, if I were you!
;)

Pete Zicato 06-09-2010 12:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawnee123 (Post 661804)
Of the 19 or so major religions, it certainly is ONE of the most persecuted, right up there with the other 18 or so. ;)
Nice. Made me chuckle out loud.

Gravdigr 06-10-2010 03:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 661794)
Yeh - better keep quiet Digr, they're lookin to get money FROM you!
Yeah, well, they can wish in one hand and shit in the other and watch which one fills up first.

I was making a joke. I ain't asking for (or taking) shit from nobody. I ain't EVER, and I ain't starting now.

classicman 06-21-2010 10:08 PM

Urbane Guerrilla 06-28-2010 08:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawnee123 (Post 661843)
Poor x-tians. Lions eatin' 'em up and all.

I would totally seek compensation from the lions, if I were you!
;)
.375 H&H solids make fine lion cartridges, if you just settle for revenge. :3eye:

Urbane Guerrilla 06-28-2010 08:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaVinciChode (Post 661482)
Beyond that, they had no honest claim to that land. They didn't take it through means of a declaration of war, followed through with enough military might to take the land... They were handed it . . .
Sounds to me like you missed a war, then: 1948. By your thinking, that territory has indeed been legitimized through having been shot over. Five countries invaded Israel that week, in initial aggregate strength of about 25,000, later reinforced. And they lost.

Coupla paras here that explain why Israel was motivated to take all of Jerusalem in '67 -- one could hardly imagine them doing anything else, what with the situation between 1949 and 1967.

1948 Arab-Israeli War -- a bit more depth.

classicman 07-22-2010 03:42 PM
The Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy
 
Quote:
When I'm talking to people from outside Washington, one question inevitably comes up: Why is the media so liberal? The question often reflects a suspicion that members of the press get together and decide on a story line that favors liberals and Democrats and denigrates conservatives and Republicans.

My response has usually been to say, yes, there's liberal bias in the media, but there's no conspiracy. The liberal tilt is an accident of nature. The media disproportionately attracts people from a liberal arts background who tend, quite innocently, to be politically liberal. If they came from West Point or engineering school, this wouldn't be the case.

Now, after learning I'd been targeted for a smear attack by a member of an online clique of liberal journalists, I'm inclined to amend my response. Not to say there's a media conspiracy, but at least to note that hundreds of journalists have gotten together, on an online listserv called JournoList, to promote liberalism and liberal politicians at the expense of traditional journalism.

My guess is that this and other revelations about JournoList will deepen the distrust of the national press. True, participants in the online clubhouse appear to hail chiefly from the media's self-identified left wing. But its founder, Ezra Klein, is a prominent writer for the Washington Post. Mr. Klein shut down JournoList last month—a wise decision.

It's thanks to Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller website that we know something about JournoList, though the emails among the liberal journalists were meant to be private. (Mr. Carlson hasn't revealed how he obtained the emails.) In June, the Daily Caller disclosed a series of JournoList musings by David Weigel, then a Washington Post blogger assigned to cover conservatives. His emails showed he loathes conservatives, and he was subsequently fired.

This week, Mr. Carlson produced a series of JournoList emails from April 2008, when Barack Obama's presidential bid was in serious jeopardy. Videos of the antiwhite, anti-American sermons of his Chicago pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, had surfaced, first on ABC and then other networks.


JournoList contributors discussed strategies to aid Mr. Obama by deflecting the controversy. They went public with a letter criticizing an ABC interview of Mr. Obama that dwelled on his association with Mr. Wright. Then, Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent proposed attacking Mr. Obama's critics as racists. He wrote:

"If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them—Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares—and call them racists. . . . This makes them 'sputter' with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction."

No one on JournoList endorsed the Ackerman plan. But rather than object on ethical grounds, they voiced concern that the strategy would fail or possibly backfire.
Link

I don't know that this type of thing went on in the past. I mean in such an organized way. Instead of reporting, it almost seems as though they chose who they were supporting and helped that candidate as they saw fit.

Yes, this is an opinion piece.

TheMercenary 07-22-2010 04:45 PM
The general Left-wing media biased is well established, which is one of the reasons that Right-wing radio and TV has become so popular IMHO.

classicman 07-25-2010 10:19 PM
CNN Host Calls for Crackdown on 'Bloggers' in Wake of Sherrod Incident: 'Something’s Going to Have to be Done Legally'
Quote:
Should there be a "gatekeeper" regulating internet bloggers? In the aftermath of the Shirley Sherrod incident, that's what CNN promoted on July 23.

Anchors Kyra Phillips and John Roberts discussed the "mixed blessing of the internet," and agreed that there should be a crackdown on anonymous bloggers who disparage others on the internet.

"There are so many great things that the internet does and has to offer, but at the same time, Kyra, as you know, there is this dark side," Roberts said. "Imagine what would have happened if we hadn't taken a look at what happened with Shirley Sherrod and plumbed the depths further and found out that what had been posted on the internet was not in fact reflective of what she said."

But Phillips replied that the mainstream media "can't always do that."

"There's going to have be a point in time where these people have to be held accountable," Phillips said. "How about all these bloggers that blog anonymously? They say rotten things about people and they're actually given credibility, which is crazy. They're a bunch of cowards, they're just people seeking attention."

Phillips demanded to know what Andrew Keen thought needed to be done. Keen, author of "The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet is Killing Our Culture," who suggested that there needs to be an internet "gatekeeper," had been interviewed by Roberts and quoted in the segment.

"Well what Andrew talked about with me was this idea of a gatekeeper but there are huge first amendment rights that come into play here - freedom of speech and all that. And he said the people who need to be the gatekeepers are the media to check into these stories," said Roberts.

Phillips wanted to go even further, asking if "there's going to come a point where something's going to have to be done legally" about anonymous bloggers.

"There has to be some point where there's some accountability. And companies, especially in the media have to stop giving these anonymous bloggers credit," she said.

Roberts responded that anonymous blogging might benefit from "checks and balances."

"If you're in a place like Iran or North Korea or something like that, anonymous blogging is the only way you could ever get your point of view out without being searched down and thrown in jail or worse," said Roberts. "But when it comes to a society like ours, an open society, do there have to be some checks and balances, not national, but maybe website to website on who comments on things?"

CNN's two regulation-happy reporters, think the Sherrod situation can help bring attention to the "necessity" of blogging reform if she brings a defamation lawsuit against Andrew Breitbart.

According to Roberts, Sherrod has "the power now and she also has the profile to maybe bring this into a new light, so we'll see where this goes."
Read more

And exactly who is gonna do this? WTF? 1st amendment ring a bell?

Lamplighter 07-25-2010 11:27 PM
1 Attachment(s)
A start will be when everyone that is interested in politics
recognizes the face and name of Andrew Breitbart,
and rejects whatever he says or does in the future.

He puked on his own reputation.

gvidas 07-26-2010 02:00 AM
David Foster Wallace, "Host"

The whole article is gold, but here are two of my favorite passages:

Quote:
More or less on the heels of the Fairness Doctrine's repeal came the West Coast and then national syndication of The Rush Limbaugh Show through Mr. McLaughlin's EFM Media. Limbaugh is the third great progenitor of today's political talk radio partly because he's a host of extraordinary, once-in-a-generation talent and charisma—bright, loquacious, witty, complexly authoritative—whose show's blend of news, entertainment, and partisan analysis became the model for legions of imitators. But he was also the first great promulgator of the Mainstream Media's Liberal Bias idea. This turned out to be a brilliantly effective rhetorical move, since the MMLB concept functioned simultaneously as a standard around which Rush's audience could rally, as an articulation of the need for right-wing (i.e., unbiased) media, and as a mechanism by which any criticism or refutation of conservative ideas could be dismissed (either as biased or as the product of indoctrination by biased media). Boiled way down, the MMLB thesis is able both to exploit and to perpetuate many conservatives' dissatisfaction with extant media sources—and it's this dissatisfaction that cements political talk radio's large and loyal audience.
Quote:
CONTAINS EDITORIAL ELEMENTS It should be conceded that there is at least one real and refreshing journalistic advantage that bloggers, fringe-cable newsmen, and most talk-radio hosts have over the mainstream media: they are neither the friends nor the peers of the public officials they cover. Why this is an advantage involves an issue that tends to get obscured by the endless fight over whether there's actually a "liberal bias" in the "elite" mainstream press. Whether one buys the bias thing or not, it is clear that leading media figures are part of a very different social and economic class than most of their audiences. See, e.g., a snippet of Eric Alterman's recent What Liberal Media?:

Quote:
No longer the working-class heroes of The Front Page/His Gal Friday lore, elite journalists in Washington and New York [and LA] are rock-solid members of the political and financial Establishment about whom they write. They dine at the same restaurants and take their vacations on the same Caribbean islands … What's more, like the politicians, their jobs are not subject to export to China or Bangladesh.
This is why the really potent partisan label for the NYT/Time/network—level press is not "liberal media" but "elite media"—because the label's true. And talk radio is very deliberately not part of this elite media. With the exception of Limbaugh and maybe Hannity, these hosts are not stars, or millionaires, or sophisticates. And a large part of their on-air persona is that they are of and for their audience—the Little Guy—and against corrupt, incompetent pols and their "spokesholes," against smooth-talking lawyers and PC whiners and idiot bureaucrats, against illegal aliens clogging our highways and emergency rooms, paroled sex offenders living among us, punitive vehicle taxes, and stupid, self-righteous, agenda-laden laws against public smoking, SUV emissions, gun ownership, the right to watch the Nick Berg decapitation video over and over in slow motion, etc. In other words, the talk host's persona and appeal are deeply, totally populist, and if it's all somewhat fake—if John Kobylt can shift a little too easily from the apoplectic Little Guy of his segments to the smooth corporate shill of his live reads—then that's just life in the big city.

TheMercenary 07-26-2010 03:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamplighter (Post 672631)
A start will be when everyone that is interested in politics
recognizes the face and name of Andrew Breitbart,
and rejects whatever he says or does in the future.

He puked on his own reputation.
I think he served a great purpose in his posting as dishonest as it was on the face of it. His Big Government website is fantastic. Hard to argue with the facts. The idea that anyone who disagrees with the mainstream left-wing media which generally dominates and has dominated the news for years now has now resorted to calling anyone who disagrees with the socialist agenda as "racist". Now we even have the left-wing moguls calling the whole of Fox News a "racist" news organization, even Joe Blow Hard Biden disagrees with that assessment and said it was a false notion. Most importantly we have seen how important it is to certain organizations to continue to play the race card in an effort to legitimize their existence rather than address the important issues that effect certain ethnic groups in our modern society. It is hard to call "the man" racist when "the man" is now a black president. I fully support an open discussion of the issues concerning race in America, but sooner or later you have to stop blaming the white man for all your ills as much as you need to stop blaming Bush for the failures of a Democratically controlled Congress...

classicman 07-26-2010 03:52 PM
HE LIED and apparently he did so intentionally. That is not OK.

Shawnee123 07-26-2010 04:01 PM
Sure ain't! Lying is bad.

TheMercenary 07-26-2010 06:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 672819)
HE LIED and apparently he did so intentionally. That is not OK.
No, he prematurely posted what he was sent, wrongly; and the very next day he posted the rest of the video which rightly vindicated her.

As for Fox, they never even posted the video until AFTER the Obama scumbags who jumped to the conclusion that there was an issue fired her!

This only points out the failure of this administration to do their homework before they through her under the bus...

And it points out how the NAACP uses race baiting to try to prolong the issue of race differences rather that try to truly achieve equality and deal with the issue of race. They were no different than the blogger by focusing on a minority issue to exploit the difference and demonize the group they detest by using the race card. The NAACP is no different.

TheMercenary 07-26-2010 06:47 PM
GEVERYL ROBINSON Nails it again:

Robinson: NAACP shouldn't drink tea

Quote:
Can someone please explain to me why the NAACP is taking on racism within the Tea Party movement when, according to reports from the Labor Department, the unemployment rate for black youth stands at 50.4 percent?

In addition, the national unemployment rate for blacks is a whopping 17.2 percent and the rates in five states exceed 20 percent, which is a 25-year high, yet the NAACP wishes to focus its attention on Tea Party billboards and the like.

The NAACP is supposed to be an organization whose mission is the advancement of "colored" people. However, recently it seems the only thing the NAACP is advancing is its time on the airwaves.

Do I think the Tea Party leaders need to publicly disavow the racist comments, signs and billboards that appear at some of their rallies? YES! However, I don't believe this is a cause that needs to be championed by the NAACP because there are more important issues at hand.

For example: According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, "fewer than 14 in 100 young black men actually have jobs." If the NAACP is truly devoted to the advancement of colored people, then why aren't they holding press conferences about the skyrocketing unemployment rates within the black community?

Why are there no forums or "Get Black to Work" campaigns being organized?

Any public denouncement of racism in the Tea Party movement by Tea Party leaders will more than likely be for public relations reasons and nothing more.

If the leaders were truly disturbed, concerned or disagreed with the antics of those within their ranks who have racist attitudes, they would speak out against such actions without the prompting of others.

As someone who has attended more than one Tea Party rally (I was curious, and although curiosity killed the cat, satisfaction brought it back), I can honestly say that there were a few wackos at one of the rallies I attended. But the other rallies were civil. The people I met did not seem to be racists, just mad at the government (and not Obama in particular).

I wanted to go to a few Tea Party rallies to get my own opinion about the organization. I didn't want to base my views on what I saw and heard in the media.

However, the billboard in Iowa sponsored by the North Iowa Tea Party comparing President Obama to Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin was despicable.

I understand that the overall message was to point out the socialist views shared by the three. But whoever thought putting a billboard of the president sandwiched between Lenin and Hitler was a good idea needs to have his or her head examined. The message was definitely lost in the visuals. The advertisement was disrespectful and racist as well.

Having said that, the NAACP needs to regain its focus and direct its attention to the immediate and dire needs of the community(s), which they aim to serve.

Otherwise they run the risk of becoming as useless and ineffective as the Hitler, Obama, and Lenin billboard in Iowa.

I understand their grievances with the Tea Party movement. But right now, the NAACP shouldn't drink tea until they have gotten to the meat of the real issues that plague the people they serve.
http://savannahnow.com/column/2010-0...ldnt-drink-tea

Urbane Guerrilla 07-27-2010 02:38 PM
Well, Chode has declared himself on the side of the nondemocracies in the region, and not on the side of the democracy which has had assaults unbroken visited upon it for sixty years of uninterrupted murder.

Well. Antisemitic much? And Chode thinks he ought to be prejudiced, that that is how a human being is supposed to act. Fu-uuuck. With a cholla.

Lamplighter 08-07-2010 05:38 PM
Maybe not a big deal for today's young adults, but for my generation it was transformational...
the image and the constitutional powers of the Presidency
the coverage by the press and the 1st Amendment
the daily national coverage of Congress debating impeachment
even the perception of Nixon's foreign policy achievements (China)
And the battle over Nixon's image continues...

NY Times article...

Watergate Becomes Sore Point at Nixon Library
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: August 6, 2010

Quote:
YORBA LINDA, Calif. — The sign at the entrance to the largest exhibition room devoted to a single subject at the Nixon Presidential Library and Museum reads “Watergate.” But on Friday, the exhibit was nearly empty, dominated by a 30-foot blank slate of a wall that is testimony to a new battle set off by this still-polarizing former president: how to mark the scandal that forced him from office 36 years ago.
Quote:
But the Nixon Foundation — a group of Nixon loyalists who controlled this museum until the National Archives took it over three years ago — described it as unfair and distorted, and requested that the archives not approve the exhibition until its objections are addressed.
Quote:
The foundation’s resistance marks the latest chapter in a long and uncomfortable history between the Nixon loyalists and the National Archives as it seeks to bring the Nixon library, along with an archive of papers and tapes, into the presidential library system.

TheMercenary 08-11-2010 07:33 AM
A great example of a group of people trying to re-write history by burying it.

classicman 08-30-2010 12:54 PM
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters
Quote:
Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Democratic total of $1,020,816 was given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks, with an average contribution of $880.

By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. The average Republican contribution was $744.
Read more at the Washington Examiner:

I find it a little disturbing that they are the ones so many rely upon for the "news."

xoxoxoBruce 08-30-2010 03:13 PM
3 major? What about FOX? Why were they excluded from the numbers?:eyebrow:

Happy Monkey 08-30-2010 03:41 PM
They were probably trying to use this as a counterstory to the $1 million that News Corp gave to the Republican Governors' Association. As in, "Look, if you add together all of the employees of three other networks, contributing to all Democratic causes, you get $1 million, too!"

spudcon 08-30-2010 07:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamplighter (Post 675084)
Maybe not a big deal for today's young adults, but for my generation it was transformational...
the image and the constitutional powers of the Presidency
the coverage by the press and the 1st Amendment
the daily national coverage of Congress debating impeachment
even the perception of Nixon's foreign policy achievements (China)
And the battle over Nixon's image continues...

NY Times article...

Watergate Becomes Sore Point at Nixon Library
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: August 6, 2010
And now, the 1st amendment is being tromped on every day, but it's the news media who're trying to silence us.

classicman 08-30-2010 07:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 679420)
3 major? What about FOX? Why were they excluded from the numbers?:eyebrow:
As HM said -
Quote:
Disclosure of the heavily Democratic contributions by influential employees of the three major broadcast networks follows on the heels of controversy last week when it was learned that media baron Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. contributed $1 million to the Republican Governors Association.

Urbane Guerrilla 08-31-2010 02:31 AM
If you don't like what the Democrats and Socialists are doing now that they have the chance, shouldn't you turn to those media that support the Republicans, and Libertarians?

classicman 08-31-2010 09:43 AM
Not personally - I don't want the media to play politics. Thats not their business. I just want the facts without all the bias.

Happy Monkey 08-31-2010 10:45 AM
Unfortunately, the current definition of "facts without bias" is to report what Democrats say, and what Republicans say, and let the reader decide, because investigating the facts might result in a "biased" answer. And then there's Fox, which does the same, but without "what Democrats say".

xoxoxoBruce 08-31-2010 12:09 PM
FOX doesn't ignore democrats, they report what democrats meant.;)

Happy Monkey 08-31-2010 12:33 PM
And then the rest of the media dutifully reports what Fox says.

classicman 08-31-2010 12:36 PM
lol - nice to know you are as disenfranchised as I am.

TheMercenary 09-01-2010 05:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 679598)
And then the rest of the media dutifully reports what Fox says.
Actually it is well documented that the rest of the media reports generally from a liberal slant and within the last 10 years, what ever the Dems what them to report.

Spexxvet 09-01-2010 05:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 679919)
Actually it is well documented that the rest of the media reports generally from a liberal slant and within the last 10 years, what ever the Dems what them to report.
Bullshit.

xoxoxoBruce 09-01-2010 05:21 PM
No, not what the Dems want them to report. The reporters personal beliefs may color their reporting, in the questions they ask, and how they summarize the responses, but the press has certainly reported a lot of stuff that embarrassed the Democrats.

TheMercenary 09-01-2010 05:28 PM
There was a pretty well documented study out of a S. Calif University which shows that the news that was currently reported at the time of the study was decidedly liberal in slant and delivery. And it has gotten even more so IMHO since Bush became president and now that Obama is in office. Fox was the first news site to take a decidedly conservative slant. Since then there are none others. As screwed up as they have been delivering some news they really have not screwed up any less than CNBC or some other more liberal sites. It is hard to argue with the ratings as well, they have been at the top of the Cable News networks in popularity for quite a while. Pretty telling for one conservative news source among all the rest that are liberal. Eh, if I don't like something on tv I just change the channel...

xoxoxoBruce 09-01-2010 05:30 PM
I don't disagree that it's gone to hell since Walter Cronkite retired, Just saying the Democrats don't dictate what/how they report.

TheMercenary 09-01-2010 05:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 679930)
I don't disagree that it's gone to hell since Walter Cronkite retired, Just saying the Democrats don't dictate what/how they report.
Yea, certainly an over statement on my part, but hell, within the last two years it would be hard to tell the difference.

Redux 09-01-2010 05:42 PM
There is always the suggestion from Sharon Angle, the Republican (tea party) Senate candidate in Nevada:
Quote:
"We wanted them to ask the questions we want to answer, so that they report the news the way we want it reported."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/...hould-ask.html
Nows thats what I call supporting a free and independent press!

TheMercenary 09-01-2010 07:50 PM
No different than the lapdogs who sit in the White House press brief every day.

TheMercenary 09-03-2010 07:33 AM
Breaking news! Not.

Quote:
The director general of the BBC admitted Thursday that his organisation had been guilty of a "massive bias to the left" but said "a completely different generation" of journalists now works at the broadcaster.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

classicman 09-03-2010 09:39 AM
In reference to 30 year ago ....

Quote:
"In the BBC I joined 30 years ago, there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left," Thompson said.

""Now it is a completely different generation." he added.

lookout123 09-03-2010 09:51 AM
So he is saying the BBC is relatively conservative now?

classicman 09-03-2010 12:01 PM
Keyword - relatively...

Pico and ME 09-03-2010 01:19 PM
I always thought that the 'liberal bias' was mostly just the predominate attitude of the time. Being of liberal bent - which I just thought meant being open and fair-minded, I never saw a bias. However, when Fox News came aboard, I definitely saw the bias there.

classicman 09-03-2010 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pico and ME (Post 680379)
Being of liberal bent - which I just thought meant being open and fair-minded
There are plenty of conservatives who are both open and fair-minded. I would verture a guess to say that the vast majority of them are. The problem isn that the Republican party is mostly known for the vocal minority mouthpiece extremists - Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Coulter and their ilk.

TheMercenary 09-04-2010 07:29 AM
Another example of bias in the press, fueling the racist debate...

The Rest of the Story

Quote:
A few words on hypocrisy:
You may have noticed that all sorts of media from the New York Times on down, made sure their audience knew that the folks at Glenn Beck’s rally in Washington were “overwhelmingly white.”
Reporting on the gathering, the Times described it as “The overwhelmingly white and largely middle-aged crowd.”
Nothing really new here. The “mainstream” media have been calling Tea Party rallies “overwhelmingly white” for quite some time now. Here are a few examples, compliments of the Culture and Media Center, an offshoot of the Media Research Center:
“The crowds turning out for the Tea Party Express rallies are overwhelmingly white.”
Ed Lavandera, CNN “American Morning” March 31, 2010.
“The crowd is still overwhelmingly white.”
Jessica Yellin, CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360” April 15, 2010.
“The crowd that greeted Palin did nothing to contradict the common description of Tea Party supporters as overwhelmingly white and mostly older.”
Ina Jaffe, NPR “Weekend Edition Sunday” March 28, 2010.
“They are overwhelmingly white and Anglo …”
USA Today July 2, 2010.

“Do you have any concerns when you look out at the crowds and they’re mostly, well, overwhelmingly white people?”
Terry Moran, ABC “Nightline” Nov. 2, 2009.
“You know, one thing to keep in mind about the Tea Party is that it is an overwhelmingly white movement.”
Ron Brownstein, NBC “Meet the Press” April 18, 2010.
And yes, the crowds at Beck’s rally and at Tea Party rallies have indeed been overwhelmingly white. But the folks who turn out to environmental rallies and anti-war rallies and feminist rallies are “overwhelmingly white” too. But for some reason the media feel no need to point that out. They drag race into the discussion only when conservatives are involved — because they see something sinister at these rallies. The ideas put forth are alien to liberal journalists. They’re not mainstream ideas, not as far as liberal journalists are concerned. So noting that the crowds are “overwhelmingly white” is a kind of warning label, not unlike the cancer warning on a pack of cigarettes. This warning label says in essence: BE ON YOUR GUARD. THE PEOPLE AT THESE RALLIES ARE CONSERVATIVES. AND OVERWHELMINGLY WHITE. CONSIDER THESE FACTS WHEN YOU LISTEN TO THEIR RIGHT WING ARGUMENTS.
But there’s another angle here that the media have shown no interest in covering. You see, the crowds at these conservative rallies aren’t the only groups that are “overwhelmingly white.” So are the journalists reporting the story. Can you imagine? So what we have here are “overwhelmingly white” liberal journalists calling conservatives at rallies “overwhelmingly white.” I guess you could call it irony. I prefer hypocrisy.
A few years ago I came up with an idea to make sure we got more racial diversity in our newsrooms – and in all of corporate America, actually. It’s a brilliant idea, if I do say so myself. Here goes:
Every white person in America who thinks affirmative action, as currently practiced, is a good idea, every white person who thinks diversity is important in the workplace, voluntarily gives up his or her job and gives it to a qualified minority person.
That way, instead of waiting another ten or twenty years for “equality” in newsrooms and corporate offices, we’d have that worthy goal accomplished overnight. By tomorrow morning, there would be thousands upon thousands more minority Americans in important jobs. Like I said, it’s brilliant!
I pitched my idea to two network news executives. “Give up your job,” I told them, “and hand it over to a qualified minority.” Both these men were big time advocates of diversity and affirmative action and have given jobs out, at least in part, based on race. Both said it was a very bad idea.
So ends my few words on hypocrisy.
http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/and-n...-of-the-story/

classicman 10-06-2010 01:34 PM
Quote:
American distrust in the media is the high percentage who believe that reporting tilts too far in one ideological direction or the other.

Forty-eight percent believe the media is too liberal while only 15 percent of find that it tilts too conservative. Just 33 percent believe coverage is “just about right.”

Democrats have significantly more trust in the media, as 59 percent indicated that they trust the news to be reported fairly while just 32 percent of Republicans said the same.

The survey of 1,019 adults was conducted Sept. 13-16 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points
Read more

I'm not sure this goes toward what Merc was saying or if its merely the perception at this point in time. Either way I was a little more than surprised at the numbers.

xoxoxoBruce 10-06-2010 01:42 PM
Quote:
“The crowd is still overwhelmingly white.”
They could be more subtle, like 'The crowd is still overwhelmingly Hockey Fans'. :haha:

Spexxvet 10-06-2010 01:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 686911)
Read more

I'm not sure this goes toward what Merc was saying or if its merely the perception at this point in time. Either way I was a little more than surprised at the numbers.
That report is biased.

classicman 10-06-2010 01:54 PM
I agree, but that doesn't change the facts.
Oh, and its just a poll. We all know what they're worth.

classicman 10-15-2010 01:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 655827)
2010: valueless "news" is replaced by comedy hosts aka Jon Stewart, and bloggers who admit their bias openly and honestly, and report directly from it for an audience that shares it
Link here

...and this kind of crap.
I really cannot say how stupid this asshat is, but I will say that he should be fired. . . IMMEDIATELY.

Happy Monkey 10-15-2010 02:51 PM
If he's fired, the Daily Show will lose another major "moment of zen" provider. They can't afford to lose their two biggest contributors so close together!

And Fox can't afford to set the precedent of firing someone for insulting Muslims.

xoxoxoBruce 10-15-2010 02:53 PM
But the next article down the page, at that link, is good.

tw 10-15-2010 04:48 PM
Why fire a Fox News public spokesman who only repeats the party line? In the constant dribble that says everyone but extremists are liberals ... Bill O'Reilly also went on a nationwide talk show to avidly blame Islam for Terrorism and 11 September. And repeated it bluntly.

After then being chastised by Barbra Walters for reciting the Fox News political agenda, O'Reilly decided to retract his hate statements. No doubt he did so only because of pressure. A liar cannot maintain his claims when confronted with hard facts. O'Reilly promotes hate as any good wacko extremist would. Even David Letterman straight out called him what he is.

How much is this is understood outside of America? After lying to kill off 4,400 America soldiers on lies, and after creating the worst recession in 75 years, promoters of hate are again vying for power by promoting hate.

Hate is not from one Fox News spokesmen. Hate of Muslims is routinely advocated by Fox News people as if Muslims were the new jew or negro. Do those here not from America understand how routine this is now seen in the streets? Hate is openly promoted, but without the expression "We want Obama to fail."

BTW, Fox News advertises itself as "Fair and Balanced".

classicman 10-15-2010 05:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tw (Post 688495)
Why fire a Fox News public spokesman
Because he's a worthless piece of shit mouthpiece. Same thing with Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar. They both walked out of their jobs. That's grounds for immediate termination. :eyebrow:

TheMercenary 10-19-2010 01:44 PM
:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 686914)
They could be more subtle, like 'The crowd is still overwhelmingly Hockey Fans'. :haha:

TheMercenary 03-03-2011 11:14 AM
This was interesting... not new, just interesting.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...nt_109095.html

classicman 04-05-2012 10:04 PM
Quote:
NBC News maliciously edited audio from a 911 call and broadcast that audio on "The Today Show."

NBC News told America that Zimmerman said this:

ZIMMERMAN: This guy looks like he’s up to no good … he looks black.

But that was a lie, we now know the actual conversation went like this:

ZIMMERMAN: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something.
It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

DISPATCHER: OK, and this guy – is he black, white or Hispanic?

ZIMMERMAN: He looks black.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:16 PM.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.