And yet you couldn't prove that statement wrong....because what txradioguy said is the truth.Originally Posted by PeterS
|
|
12-06-2012, 10:56 AM
And yet you couldn't prove that statement wrong....because what txradioguy said is the truth.
12-06-2012, 11:01 AM
I watch the daily show. It's comedy. But what's sad is that it's more informative than 90% of the "news" shows out there. You're probably better off getting your news there than MSNBC or CNN, that's for sure.
12-06-2012, 11:51 AM
So you didn't see a problem with NBC and it's offshoots basically campaigning for Obama? You didn't see anything wrong with the liberal media completely ignoring the Benghazi situation? You don't think there's a problem with the liberal media giving Obama a pass on pretty much everything? I can't imagine you do because you're a leftist lapdog yourself. Stay in the basement, little boy. It's safer there. Putz.
12-06-2012, 01:17 PM
These are hardly major media outlets. Most of these are individual commentators, and a number of them are not even conservative. Exclude those, and you have very few media "outlets", much less major ones. For example:
Nope. Not nearly. For every outlet that you cited, there are literally dozens of leftist equivalents. The New York Post is the only conservative daily in NYC, while the NY Times, Daily News and Newsday are liberal. The two weekly papers, the Village Voice and NY Press are both liberal (although NY Press started out conservative, but changed when the owner sold the paper). The Washington Times is countered by the Washington Post, which is far more widely circulated, and which owns a number of other papers which syndicate its columnists. In terms of TV, FOXNews is the only conservative channel, while CBS, ABC, CNN, NBC (and their far left affiliate, MSNBC) are left of center. Also, the news wire services, AP, UPI and Reuters, are liberal. There is no conservative equivalent.
Sharpton's audience is a fraction of the audience share that Kieth Olbermann (who Sharpton replaced) had. In fact, Sharpton's audience is minute, so there's not a whole lot of eyeballs to be gained by appealing to him. But that isn't the point. Louis Farakhan has listeners. David Duke has listeners. Should the president invite them to the White House? How odious does a TV personality have to be before you will criticize a liberal for having him over? Al Sharpton is a bigoted, lying criminal whose actions have caused tremendous pain to the nation, and to individuals who were victimized by the violence that he has unleashed.
Most conservative outlets simply try to report stories that the mainstream media avoid. The mainstream media's coverage of Benghazi, for example, was minimal, due almost entirely to their desire to avoid having the public informed about one of Obama's myriad failures that close to the election. It was pure partisanship.
12-06-2012, 02:21 PM
This is precisely my point. Had there been a Republican in the White House and Benghazi went down the same way, it would be front page news every day and the lead story on very news outlet every day here and overseas. The issue would have been pushed hard by Senate and House Democrats that a special commission be convened to get to the bottom of the story. The cries of what did the POTUS know and when did he know it would be deafening and impeachment proceedings would be thrown around like so much Christmas candy at a parade. Funny thing is that people like PeterS know this to be true but don't have the 'nads to admit it.
12-06-2012, 02:25 PM
Anyone with a IQ of 3 or more knows that if there were a Republican in the whitehouse Libya wouldn't have been buried as it was. Peter doesn't have the Intellectual (or the integrity) honesty to admit that. Wow I just thought about what would happen if bush was in and that happened lol the howls would be deafening.
12-06-2012, 04:05 PM
Exactly. Look at how Walter Chronkite covered Watergate (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...45-504083.html). Even CBS admits that he pushed it into the public eye:
July 20, 2009 6:15 PM
Cronkite on the Crime of the Century: "The Watergate Caper"Topics Daily Blotter
New York (CBS) The year was 1972. Two young reporters from the Washington Post were on the trail of one the most explosive stories in decades. Watergate. But it was Walter Cronkite who brought the revelations and latest details of the scandal to the national television audience.
With his steady and straightforward delivery, and millions of viewers tuned in at home, "the most trusted man in America" gave legitimacy to, what was then a developing story, that ultimately resulted in the indictment and conviction of several of President Richard Nixon's closest advisors, and in the resignation of the President himself.
CBS News presented a two-part, 22 minute, overview of the Watergate scandal in October 1972. The first was segment was 14 minutes, the second was eight. The reports are now credited with keeping the story alive and served as a turning point in a case that came to grip America.
"The fact that Cronkite did Watergate at all gave the story a kind of blessing, which is exactly what we needed," wrote Ben Bradlee, Washington Post editor during the Watergate era, in Newsweek last Friday. "You could feel the change overnight... A little more than a week after the Cronkite broadcast, Nixon decisively won his reelection campaign. But those of us following the story felt it. Washington people, people who followed national stories—a lot of them who had not decided that we were right changed their minds because of Walter."
(AP)Democratic National Committee office in the Watergate complex in Washington on April 20, 1973.
Bradlee said that it was Cronkite that made heroes of reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, who helped break the story for the Post.
The story netted Cronkite an Emmy for his coverage, an award that he was said to have valued most out of all the others. "That's the big doozy," he said of the award to one friend.
He will be missed.Note that Chronkite devoted that time to Watergate a week prior to the election. He was aiming for Nixon, but didn't succeed in throwing the election to McGovern. Compare that to the MSM treatment of Benghazi, in which four Americans were killed, including the US ambassador. Did the combined network coverage of Benghazi amount to 22 minutes? And how much of it was spent attacking Romney for raising the issue, rather than actually reporting on the event?
12-07-2012, 06:25 AM
Honestly...Fox isn't conservative. What they do...that the other networks fail to do...is report in a balanced way. What Libtards like Small Peter fail to seperate is the hard news reporting from the commentary.
He sees Jon Scott and Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly and Bill Hemmer as one and the same.
Never mind two are doing video versions of an opinion column and two are doing hard news. He can't seperate the two.
But event hat is understandable...the major news outlets long ago abandoned the line between commentary (personal opinion) and hard news (just the facts) and have so blended the two over the eyars that incurious people like Small Peter don't realize they are getting propaganda instead of straight news stories.
And when Libtards like Small Peter DO actually watch a good balanced news story...their head explodes because they're so used to getting propaganda they can't comprehend or accept what they are hearing.
| « Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
