Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 68 of 68
  1. #61  
    Senior Member Zathras's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Jose, California
    Posts
    6,242
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    Romney couldn't have said it better...oh sorry, guess you were misrepresented again!
    And yet you couldn't prove that statement wrong....because what txradioguy said is the truth.
    Solve a man's problem with violence and help him for a day. Teach a man how to solve his problems with violence, help him for a lifetime - Belkar Bitterleaf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #62  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    Here's how silly liberals are. They consider The Daily Show as actual news.
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #63  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    15,897
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    Have you made your point? Rightwing media, and media outlets, intentionally try to appeal to conservatives and go out of their way to denegrate anything that isn't conservative or portray a conservative point of view. If this leaves the remainder of media "state run" it's only because RW media has gone out of it's way to issolate itself. The intent of RW media is to appeal to a few, and you do. And yes, the facts are what they are...
    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.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #64  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    Ann Coulter News--Coulter is an individual journalist. She is featured on FOXNews, but she doesn't have her own network.
    Armstrong Williams News--Journalist and commentator, not an outlet
    Bill O'Reilly News--Part of FOX
    Charles Krauthammer News--Journalist and commentator, not an outlet.
    Conservative Media News--Never heard of it.
    Don Imus News--Journalist and commentator with his own radio show, but he's not a network, and not all that conservative.
    Drudge Report News--That's one, sort of, except that Drudge is only on the web, and again, not that conservative, unless you consider linking to stories that the left doesn't cover to be conservative.
    FOX News--That's one for you.
    George F. Will News--Journalist and commentator, not an outlet
    Human Events News
    Jeff Gannon/James Guckert News--Journalist and commentator, not an outlet
    John Tierney (NY Times Columnist) News--token conservative at one of the most liberal news outlets in the country
    Laura Ingraham News--Journalist and commentator, not an outlet
    Maggie Gallagher News--Journalist and commentator, not an outlet
    Matt Drudge News--Did he become more conservative since the first time you listed him?
    Neil Cavuto (Fox News Anchor) News--Journalist and commentator, not an outlet
    New York Post News--That's two. And reflexively adding the word "news" to the back end of a name doesn't make it an outlet.
    NewsMax News--That's three, sort of.
    Patrick Joseph "Pat" Buchanan News--Journalist and commentator, not an outlet
    Rupert Murdoch News--You mean FOX?
    Rush Limbaugh News--Journalist and commentator, although a very widely heard one. I'll give you four.
    Wall Street Journal News--Uh, no. The Wall Street Journal editorial page is conservative, but the news division is not.
    Washington Times News--Five
    Weekly Standard News--Six
    That really obnoxous chineese chick, can't remember her name.--I think you mean Michelle Malkin, who is Filipina. Again, a commentator, not an outlet.
    And this doesen't even touch the right wings christian outlets.

    Enough?
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    History? Sharpton has listeners that the president is using him to appeal to. That's the target the president is interest in not Sharpton...
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    Have you made your point? Rightwing media, and media outlets, intentionally try to appeal to conservatives and go out of their way to denegrate anything that isn't conservative or portray a conservative point of view. If this leaves the remainder of media "state run" it's only because RW media has gone out of it's way to issolate itself. The intent of RW media is to appeal to a few, and you do. And yes, the facts are what they are...
    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.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #65  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    15,897
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post

    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.
    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.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #66  
    Senior Member Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,128
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    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.
    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.
    We're from Philadelphia, We Fight- Chip Kelly
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #67  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    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.
    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?
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #68  
    Moderator txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,649
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    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.
    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.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •