Welcome to PatsFans.com

Anybody else notice this?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Real World, Jan 11, 2007.

  1. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,452
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +913 / 7 / -3

    I was doing my usual channel shuffle last night, both before and after Bush's speech, and noticed something interesting. I noticed that FOX had a repub presidential candidates on in McCain & Giuliani, MSNBC had a Dem candidate on in Obama, and CNN had a Dem in John Edwards. Now, I was surfing back and forth, with a little Celtics mixed in, so I might have missed it if they had someone else on, so keep that in mind. It was just funny since I view the 3 channels accordingly. Right, left, and leftist. :D
     
  2. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,452
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +913 / 7 / -3

    [​IMG]


    What about the Republican support then NEM? Ah, wait, you're a bleeding heart Democrat. That's right. So it's not two sides, it's just yours. None of the stations, after the speech anyhow (Hannity and Combs did have Vilsack and Giuliani on an hour later) had both parties represented. Mathews had Obama, Humme had McCain, and King had Edwards in studio.
     
  3. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,927
    Likes Received:
    286
    Ratings:
    +781 / 18 / -23

    #24 Jersey

    It's a shame that MSNBC has gone further to the left than Fox is to the right. Tucker is still good but Chris Mathews has moved WAY to the left and Olberman is so far to the left he's fallen off the earth. I used to love Mathews even with his left lean but he's a lost cause now.
     
  4. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,452
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +913 / 7 / -3

    Funny you say that. I feel pretty much the same way. I used to watch Mathews EVERY night. Loved his show. He was a Jimmy Carter employee, so I knew where his leanings were, but he was pretty good none the less. The last year he's really regressed. My feeling is that he so dislikes the Bush Administration that he's let it affect his show. Understandable, but still a shame. He's become party obvious. Not as leftist as Odorman obviously, but Mathews is beginning to move out of the center limits, if he hasn't already. I still watch him though, but I have to add a couple of more grains of salt to whatever he says.
     
  5. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,927
    Likes Received:
    286
    Ratings:
    +781 / 18 / -23

    #24 Jersey

    I'll watch for a few minutes that's it. I was pretty much disgusted with him when he discussed Plame Gate ad nauseum until it turned out to not be as damning as he thought and he hasn't touched it since. Sorry to say this but he's gone from someone who I disagreed with but pulled me in because he obviously loved politics to a partisan hack.

    It coincided fairly closely with when Dan Abrams took over MSNBC, I think it's a network decision to be less centrist and more controversial to save the pathetic ratings.
     
  6. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,993
    Likes Received:
    322
    Ratings:
    +593 / 24 / -19

    NEM's point is quite valid. If the president gives a speech, you normally have a response representing a different point of view. That way you get some balance. So, if the president gets half an hour, give a few minutes to the opposition. If there's a lot of time, make it a round table with both views represented. If Faux did as Real World said, then Faux as usual was very unprofessional.
     
  7. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,608
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    how is this even quantifiable?...

    further, how is it even possible to be more extreme than the official propaganda network, Faux News? i wonder if MSNBC has overtly biased memos like these distributed to their news chiefs like Rupert Murdoch's embarrassment to journalism routinely has... mind you, this is a "news" executive, dictating to his team how to slant the day's presentation.... i can't think of anything more reprehensible in that field:

    The following is a sample of reporting instructions issued by news exec. John Moody to the FOX News staff.

    Moody on the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal:

    [T]he pictures from Abu Graeb [sic] prison are disturbing. They have rightly provoked outrage. Today we have a picture -- aired on Al Arabiya -- of an American hostage being held with a scarf over his eyes, clearly against his will. Who's outraged on his behalf? It is important that we keep the Abu Graeb [sic] situation in perspective (5/5/04).

    Moody on the war in Iraq:

    As is often the case, the real news is [sic] Iraq is being obscured by temporary tragedy. The creation of a defense ministry, which will be run by Iraqis, is a major step forward in the country's redevelopment. Let's look at that, as well as the deaths of a US soldier in a roadside bombing (3/25/04).

    Into Fallujah: It's called Operation Vigilant Resolve and it began Monday morning (NY time) with the US and Iraqi military surrounding Fallujah. We will cover this hour by hour today, explaining repeatedly why it is happening. It won't be long before some people start to decry the use of "excessive force". We won't be among that group (4/4/04).

    The events in Iraq Tuesday are going to be the top story, unless and until something else (or worse) happens. Err on the side of doing too much Iraq rather than not enough. Do not fall into the easy trap of mourning the loss of US lives and asking out loud why are we there? The US is in Iraq to help a country brutalized for 30 years protect the gains made by Operation Iraqi Freedom and set it on the path to democracy. Some people in Iraq don't want that to happen. That is why American GIs are dying. And what we should remind our viewers (4/6/04).

    If, as promised, the coalition decides to take Fallujah back by force, it will not be for lack of opportunities for the terrorists holed up there to negotiate. Let's not get lost in breast-beating about the sadness of the loss of life. They had a chance (4/22/04).

    The continuing carnage in Iraq -- mostly the deaths of seven US troops in Sadr City -- is leaving the American military little choice but to punish perpetrators. When this happens, we should be ready to put in context the events that led to it. More than 600 US military dead, attacks on the UN headquarters last year, assassination of Iraqi officials who work with the coalition, the deaths of Spanish troops last fall, the outrage in Fallujah: whatever happens, it is richly deserved (4/4/04).

    [L]et's refer to the US marines we see in the foreground [of pictures coming out of Fallujah] as "sharpshooters" not snipers, which carries a negative connotation (4/28/04).

    Moody on abortion:

    [Le]t's spend a good deal of time on the battle over judicial nominations, which [th]e President will address this morning. Nominees who both sides admit are [qu]alified are being held up because of their POSSIBLE, not demonstrated, views [on] one issue -- abortion. This should be a trademark issue for FNC today and in [th]e days to come (5/9/03).

    Two style notes: [Eric Ru]dolph is charged with bombing an abortion clinic, not a "health clinic." ...[TO]DAY'S HEARING IS NOT AN ARRAIGNMENT. IT IS AN INITIAL HEARING (6/2/03).

    Moody on Senator John Kerry (D-MA):

    Kerry, starting to feel the heat for his flip-flop voting record, is in West Virginia. There's a near-meaningless primary in Illinois (3/16/04).

    Ribbons or medals? Which did John Kerry throw away after he returned from Vietnam. This may become an issue for him today. His perceived disrespect for the military could be more damaging to the candidate than questions about his actions in uniform (4/26/04).

    John Kerry may wish he'd taken off his microphone before trashing the GOP. Though he insists he meant republican [sic] "attack squads," his coarse description of his opponents has cast a lurid glow over the campaign (3/12/04).

    Bill Clinton's book "My Life" may come out in time to let John Kerry have the spotlight by convention time. Then again, maybe it won't (4/27/04).

    Moody on President George W. Bush:

    [Th]e president is doing something that few of his predecessors dared undertake: [pu]tting the US case for mideast peace to an Arab summit. It's a distinctly [sk]eptical crowd that Bush faces. His political courage and tactical cunning ar[e] [wo]rth noting in our reporting through the day (6/3/03).

    Moody on the 9/11 Commission:

    The so-called 9/11 commission has already been meeting. In fact, this is its eighth session. The fact that former Clinton and both frmer [sic] and current Bush administration officials are testifying gives it a certain tension, but this is not "what did he know and when did he know it" stuff. Do not turn this into Watergate. Remember the fleeting sense of national unity that emerged from this tragedy. Let's not desecrate that (3/23/04).

    Remember that while there are obvious political implications for Bush, the commission is looking at eight years of the Clinton Administration versus eight months (the time prior to 9/11 that Bush was in office) for the incumbent (3/24/04).

    Moody on America's European "allies":

    [At] the UN, Catherine Herridge will follow the US sponsored resolution calling [fo]r the lifting of sanctions against Iraq. Not surprisingly, we're facing [re]sistance from our erstwhile European buddies, the French and Germans (5/9/03).

    [Bu]sh's G-8 trip is actually less important than his fledgling efforts to knock [t]ogether the Israeli and Palestinian PMs' heads. Let's keep in mind that the [G-]8 contains the most obstreperous dissidents against the war on terror. Bush [ha]s a long memory and new friends in Poland the rest of Eastern Europe (5/29/03).

    Moody on what war footage to air and not air:

    Five American GIs killed in Iraq in a bomb and an attack represent one of the grimmest days there in months. There is also footage of a mutilated body being dragged down a road which WE WILL NOT AIR UNTIL IT HAS BEEN CLEARED (3/31/04).

    The pictures shown in the Times and NY Post today of the dead American contractors are exactly what we chose NOT to use yesterday. Please don't get sucked into this taste race to the bottom (4/1/04).
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2007
  8. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Lol, Bush had THIRTY MINUTES to make his point & present his side. If they gave a Democrat equal time, THEN they could fairly have both a Democrat and a Republican to discuss it afterwords.
     
  9. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,093
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Wow...there has been a shift in the electorate and you cons don't want to give the MAJORITY air time. Surprise.

    Note: if you think everyones to the left of you, maybe you are too far right. Nahh...couldn't be you are the partisan ones.

    Most of the cons are completely out of touch with reality. How did this happen? FOX FOX FOX, an organ of the Bush authoritarian presidency. They send their talking points direct to Murdoch to he can broadcast them.

    These are the same people that sold us this debacle in Iraq. They pushed hardest for connections that didn't exist, and denied reporting problems as they arose. These are the same ones that have denied anything was wrong there for the past 4 years.

    And with all their lies, they are still admired by the cons.
     
  10. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,927
    Likes Received:
    286
    Ratings:
    +781 / 18 / -23

    #24 Jersey

    It's my opinion from watching both over a bunch of years.
     
  11. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,608
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    great... however let's not confuse political pundits or talk shows with the general news presentation by an anchor... both networks have their punditry and news "entertainers"... however, when the main news host and the news presentation is cooked and slanted, as it is on Fox, that's where integrity wanes... i believe my posts on the previous page shows undeniable bias by the main man at Fox... and that's just the way Cheney and the gang like it...

    you can go on and on about Olberman, or Matthews, or whoever, but until you show me proven examples of slanted news preperation and presentation, i've yet to see MSNBC show a bias in its field reporting...
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2007
  12. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,452
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +913 / 7 / -3


    The Plame ordeal really stuck out to me. He had it on EVERY night, which I remember cuz the the shows felt so redundant. Then, all of sudden, poof, it disappeared. That, and the Allen macaca/N-word bit. Allen was a boob, but he made that issue a nightly thing. He had some goof on who talked for 10, 15 minutes about Allen & the N-word, and then before his segment was over, he admitted he'd never heard him say it, and couldn't swear that it was even said. The goof said "someone told him". Huh? Again though, I do like his show. I liked how he rolled his eyes when Howard Dean wouldn't answer a question about the Dems position on Iraq prior to the election. It showed he at least knew BS when he saw it.
     
  13. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,452
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +913 / 7 / -3

    Um, did you watch the speech? Cuz Dick Durbin gave a Democratic rebuttal about 4 minutes after the president spoke. You didn't miss that did you?
     
  14. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,452
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +913 / 7 / -3

    Pujo, this is the way it always works. President first, opposing party second. There is no limit to how long either can speak. If the president took 3 minutes, the Dems could have taken 10. It's a matter of each having the opportunity to speak, which they did.

    Guys, the only point I was trying to make, is that the channels seemed to present themselves the way I see them. Right, left, and leftist. I'm not hear to say one station is better than the other. Remember, I've been telling you people that all news sources have slants and angles. I'm simply bringing to light how I saw that last night.
     
  15. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,452
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +913 / 7 / -3

    Who's looking to deny anyone airtime? It's customary that the president speaks, and the opposition party rebuts. Bush spoke, and Durbin rebutted. I'm merely bringing to light how Fox had McCain on, MSNBC had Obama on (he really can speak BTW, too bad he's making the mistake of running now), and how CNN had Edwards in studio. I view each as right , left, and leftist, respectively.
     
  16. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,452
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +913 / 7 / -3

    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ................

    Nah, your right bud, Fox is the only news outlet that slants the news, or reports with angles. How silly of us for not realizing they're the only ones in the country who do it.

    My bad.

    :bricks:
     
  17. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,993
    Likes Received:
    322
    Ratings:
    +593 / 24 / -19

    Actually, I have to confess. I can't stand Bush or tv commentators, who are mostly loudmouth and superficial, regardless of their politics. So, I didn't see the speech, but I read it this morning.
     
  18. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,608
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Plamegate "not as damning as he thought???" are you absolutely kidding?

    anyone who denies that "Plamegate" isn't an incredibly important story clearly doesn't know much about it... if you'd like to debate the specifics of the Administration's coordinated and vindictive efforts to bind and thwart dissent within the entire CIA, let's get it on... it's among my favorite topics and i have oodles of information on the subject ...

    the possibility that Matthews "suddenly dropped it" merely indicates that not much more could be said about it.... however, next week, when jury selection begins for Tricky Dick's confidant Frank Nitty, erm, i mean Scoot Libby, it will be all over the news again...

    if anyone cares for more affirmation on Valerie Plame's intentional and illegal outing as an important, unprotected COVERT operative for the CIA, go to Barnes and Noble and read "Hubris" chapter 15, "A Cover Blown"... here's an excerpt...

    She (Valerie Wilson) knew that Washington was a town fueled by leaks. But why, she wondered, would anyone have done this? ...

    She assumed the agency would protect her. But it hadn't. And now her cover, both professional and personal, was blown. For nearly two decades, she had maintained a secret identity. Neighbors, friends, relatives -- they had no idea that Valerie Wilson, this poised and confident woman who had told everybody she was an energy analyst -- was a spy.

    After reading the (Novak) article, Valerie Wilson zeroed in on close-to-home worries. Her career, she feared, was in jeapardy. Her previous operations -- the assets and sources she had worked with -- might be threatened. Brewster Jennings & Associates, the paper-only front group that had provided cover for her and other CIA officers, could be revealed as a fake company; anyone connected to it would be compromised. Intelligence services around the globe, she assumed, were probably already running her name through their records, looking to see if she had contact with anyone of importance to them.

    ... At the time, she had no idea that the leak had been caused by both Armitage's indiscretion and Rove's desire to discredit a critic.


    Now, just try to imagine the outrage if the Clinton Administration perpetuated this offense...
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2007
  19. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,608
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    witty... now show me documented proof, as i have with Fox... and not just a feeling in your heart...
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2007
  20. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,452
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +913 / 7 / -3


    Please, don't kick me when I'm down. Please! You're right, I'm wrong. CNN, ABC, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, the NYT, WND, the Weekly Standard, & every other news source outside of FOX and the BBC have ZERO slant at all. You've shown me the light. I believe now.

    :bricks:
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>