Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: MB_722 on August 27, 2008, 08:19:56 PM
-
I'm watching CNN right now and I don't hear it
???
This sucks
-
MSN is all over their nuts, without a doubt.
FOX keps doing vocal overdubs over the candidate, and blocked out a lot of the applause that we heard on MSN.
Very one-sided by both channels.
-
everyones nut-hugging is making me sick
-
I can't stand Amy Holmes on CNN.
-
MSN is all over their nuts, without a doubt.
FOX keps doing vocal overdubs over the candidate, and blocked out a lot of the applause that we heard on MSN.
Very one-sided by both channels.
Actually dude, some Democratic senator (from Philly can't remember his name) that was praising Obama last night on Hannity and Colmes at the DNC was asked by Hannity "who has provided the most unbiased coverage of the two candidates?" and he flat out said "I may get alotof fluff about this later on, but Fox"
It's true O'Reilly has really not had one nice thing to say about either of them, mostly McCain he has been harsh on
-
O'Riley, despite some of his issues, does try to be more balanced. I've seen him hammer both sides as opposed to some of these guys who nut-hug on either side.
This is an important point: I think the biggest wall to real progress is our two party system. The blind party loyalty is archaeic and causes most of our problems. I wish they would do away with the two party system. Much of it is such bullshit....just like these conventions. The two party system hinders progress, effective government and promotes in-fighting (like we see even from the loyalists on this little board).
-
you & shoot,
OReilly is very balanced lately on his show... going out of his way to offer both views, which is new.
Hume and crew doing the coverage were absolutely not, over the last 3 nights.
-
In total agreement.
The media (liberal) is giving Obama (The Messiah) a hand job everyday. Makes me nauseas. And no one dare not say or ask anything intrusive about the Messiah. You’ll get gang raped by NBC.
No one in the main steam media is really investing his relationship with known terrorist Bill Ayers. Stanly Kurtz from National Review Online is really the only one extensively investigating the Annenberg Project where Obama had a close relationship with Ayers dealing in “education” projects. First Obama said Ayers was just a "neighbor". Well now we know that's a lie.
Why does the media seem to overlook this? This is big.
What about Tony Rezko (sp?) Talk about Chicago thug politics.
He fought against a bill that protected babies born alive in botched abortions, TWICE. Lied about that, then only recently his campaign admitted he lied.
Why does no one in the media seem to care he wanted to kill infants?
I just read the other day when Obama takes office he says one of the first things he is going to do is drop all restrictions on abortions.
Why does the media give him a pass on the Rev. Wright fiasco? The guy went to his church for over 20 years, gave him tens of thousands of dollars, and had his children baptized by Wright. (I’m sure I’m missing something here too). And then he claims he didn’t know Wright had that opinion of America and how it was a shock to hear him say those things.
Has gotten support from Palestinians. Iran has stated they would like to see him as president.
He told a seven year old at a town hall meeting a few weeks back that when asked why he was running for president he said, “This country is not what it once was. I don’t want my children to grow up like that.”
The greatest country in the entire history of the world, still is, and he puts it down while speaking to a child.
Does anyone not see a pattern here? This guy has been brainwashed his whole life by radicalists who see socialism as the future for this country. And dare I say communism?
And the media just bows down and worships this idiot. Not questioning anything he does or says.
Sad.
There are numerous more issues that puts Obama into more of a negative spotlight but I have to go.
-
"Does anyone not see a pattern here? This guy has been brainwashed his whole life by radicalists who see socialism as the future for this country"
I agree. He seems to have learned and been influenced by a lot of big gov/socialist figures who molded his opinions. Obama is not a mainstream democrat...he is to the left wing of the party. his voting record is clear. The media hasn't entirely given him a pass, but they are not focusing enough on the details of his votes, stances, and historical associations & collegues that are concerning. The democrats should have had the balls to stop the Obama train earlier and gotten a more moderate nominee. Now they may loose the election because more things are coming out about Obama's history...even though its seems like its a struggle to get these things anywhere near the mainstream media.
This guy is not really qualified to be president, nor is he moderate enough. His backround of 'community organizer in South Chicago' is not appropriate for a president.
-
In total agreement.
The media (liberal)
liberal media is a myth.
;)
-
If it really was a "liberal" media......
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=228485.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=228485.0)
Why are most jounalists liberal?
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=228537.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=228537.0)
Myth of Liberal Media
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=228416.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=228416.0)
I asked this question b/c I question why people (viewers) still take this "news" & "analysis" as anything real.
-
This is why I try to read news reports from no-name reporters reporting the facts. Why should I look for information from Wolf Blitzer, Bill O'Reilly or any other pundit/personality? Unfortunately, broadcast news runs on personality and what's hot.
What's hot? Obama. Why? B/c he's new and he's a good speaker. McCain has been around for centuries. He's not new news.
No one gets a pass if the story sells. the Rev. Wright story ran its news cycle. It's old and not selling anymore.
No one here seems to remember the nonstop handjob McCain got in 2000 and beyond--the maverick, straight talk, straight shooter, integrity, tells it like is, bipartisan, etc.
It was Big Media's gospel to mention all those things when speaking of Saint McCain. It was like that for years.
Now Obama gets 'some' of that treatment for a few months and people go berzerk about the liberal media.
Stop it.
-
If it really was a "liberal" media......
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=228485.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=228485.0)
Why are most jounalists liberal?
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=228537.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=228537.0)
Myth of Liberal Media
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=228416.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=228416.0)
I asked this question b/c I question why people (viewers) still take this "news" & "analysis" as anything real.
To post links from previous discussions on ‘Getbig’ really doesn’t make your point.
These people are paid to be journalists. Give all the information; don’t hide the truth to support an agenda. Question both sides and give them equal time. Not to make implications on what they think the situation may or may not be.
For the entire last six months every news report on the economy always had the word recession in it. We are not nor have we been in a recession.
~ Bad implication
Do you hear of any good news from Iraq? No you don’t. Not from the mains stream media. The Iraqis have met- last time I checked- 16 of the 18 political benchmarks set by us. There is more violence in my home town now than there is in Iraq. That should be the opening story line every time the news comes on. But it isn’t. But if a suicide blows up a goat market, you’ll hear about it.
We, the US, our soldiers, have sacrificed so much, spent billions of dollars freeing that country, you would think the talking heads would discuss the good news from there once in a while.
~ Not giving the information.
A distinguished journalist doesn’t investigate his own story, which was meant to hurt a certain politician, and is completely proven to be a bogus one. That is what you call text book liberalism.
Besides, poll after poll, study after study says that most of the media members are left leaning democrats. A lot of them admit it!
They can affiliate with whatever party they want, but when it seeps through in there reporting is when it crosses a line.
And I don’t see how anyone can watch the news now pertaining to Hussein Obama and not think there is an obvious bias towards the moon-bats.
. The media hasn't entirely given him a pass, but they are not focusing enough on the details of his votes, stances, and historical associations & collegues that are concerning. The democrats should have had the balls to stop the Obama train earlier and gotten a more moderate nominee. Now they may loose the election because more things are coming out about Obama's history...even though its seems like its a struggle to get these things anywhere near the mainstream media.
This guy is not really qualified to be president, nor is he moderate enough. His backround of 'community organizer in South Chicago' is not appropriate for a president.
I could not agree with you more. They haven't given him a complete pass but when someone is running for the most powerful man in the world I would expect a lot more scrutiny on his past.
I think you're right, the dems are nervous that they picked the wrong guy. He's not electable. As much as the media and his loyal band of followers worship him, it would seem he would have a much bigger lead in the polls. Not so. Just goes to show you how out of touch with America the media is. The true heart of this country can see right through Obama's sickening rhetoric.
-
To post links from previous discussions on ‘Getbig’ really doesn’t make your point.
These people are paid to be journalists. Give all the information; don’t hide the truth to support an agenda. Question both sides and give them equal time. Not to make implications on what they think the situation may or may not be.
For the entire last six months every news report on the economy always had the word recession in it. We are not nor have we been in a recession.
~ Bad implication
Do you hear of any good news from Iraq? No you don’t. Not from the mains stream media. The Iraqis have met- last time I checked- 16 of the 18 political benchmarks set by us. There is more violence in my home town now than there is in Iraq. That should be the opening story line every time the news comes on. But it isn’t. But if a suicide blows up a goat market, you’ll hear about it.
We, the US, our soldiers, have sacrificed so much, spent billions of dollars freeing that country, you would think the talking heads would discuss the good news from there once in a while.
~ Not giving the information.
A distinguished journalist doesn’t investigate his own story, which was meant to hurt a certain politician, and is completely proven to be a bogus one. That is what you call text book liberalism.
Besides, poll after poll, study after study says that most of the media members are left leaning democrats. A lot of them admit it!
They can affiliate with whatever party they want, but when it seeps through in there reporting is when it crosses a line.
And I don’t see how anyone can watch the news now pertaining to Hussein Obama and not think there is an obvious bias towards the moon-bats.
I could not agree with you more. They haven't given him a complete pass but when someone is running for the most powerful man in the world I would expect a lot more scrutiny on his past.
I think you're right, the dems are nervous that they picked the wrong guy. He's not electable. As much as the media and his loyal band of followers worship him, it would seem he would have a much bigger lead in the polls. Not so. Just goes to show you how out of touch with America the media is. The true heart of this country can see right through Obama's sickening rhetoric.
Mightymouse speaking the truth, as usual. :)
-
;)
-
To post links from previous discussions on ‘Getbig’ really doesn’t make your point.
I posted these links because it has already been discussed. There is no way the media is liberal. Journalists may be liberal but the people who sign their cheques aren't.
-
There is no way the media is liberal. Journalists may be liberal but the people who sign their cheques aren't.
Dude, you don't get out much.
Forgive me if I didn't get in the discussions previously.
I didn't see this link posted in any of the above threads you mentioned but if I'm reposting, forgive me again.
Go slow, there's a lot to take in.....
http://newsbusters.org/
-
Dude, you don't get out much.
Forgive me if I didn't get in the discussions previously.
I didn't see this link posted in any of the above threads you mentioned but if I'm reposting, forgive me again.
Go slow, there's a lot to take in.....
http://newsbusters.org/
I perused the site. Talk about hyper-sensitive egg-shell perspectives. These people had a problem with some morning show calling the Denver Democratic nomination of Obama "historic.' Let's see, the first black presidential nominee in american history is Obama and these badass liberal morning show hosts characterize the situation as "historic."
That's not liberal spin.
Mainstream media is incompetent. It's not liberal.
When's the last time you've seen a liberal pundit on a morning talkshow?
-
Media is a business, because of that it will never be objective. It will ONLY be loyal to it's advertisers. What ever sells will be reported.
It's a fantasy to think real objectivity would exist.
Why is Obama dominating the news? Because he IS news right now and McCain isn't. But who people will vote for is different.
-
you & shoot,
OReilly is very balanced lately on his show... going out of his way to offer both views, which is new.
Hume and crew doing the coverage were absolutely not, over the last 3 nights.
....brit fucking hume.....watching his shit gives me the urge to leap off a fucking bridge. Is there a more obvious neo-twat favoring program out there? fuck na.
-
I'm watching CNN right now and I don't hear it
???
This sucks
Watch Fox News...CNN is awful.
-
I perused the site. Talk about hyper-sensitive egg-shell perspectives. These people had a problem with some morning show calling the Denver Democratic nomination of Obama "historic.' Let's see, the first black presidential nominee in american history is Obama and these badass liberal morning show hosts characterize the situation as "historic."
That's not liberal spin.
Mainstream media is incompetent. It's not liberal.
When's the last time you've seen a liberal pundit on a morning talkshow?
You picked one topic from that site that is questionably liberal. I'll admit there are some stories on newsbusters that are a reach and do seem a little dumb. Scan the site periodically, you'll get some interesting stuff.
When's the last time I've seen a liberal pundit on a morning talkshow?
Everytime I turn one on.
-
Last september, MSNBC gave more coverage to the edwards affair (1 day) than FOX news did (no days).
Sounds like FOX is the libereal lie machine here, covering up a major news story.
-
Some studies….
http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/pdf/BiasBasics.pdf
Proof of bias…
http://www.mediaresearch.org/archive/nq/welcome.asp
-
You picked one topic from that site that is questionably liberal. I'll admit there are some stories on newsbusters that are a reach and do seem a little dumb. Scan the site periodically, you'll get some interesting stuff.
When's the last time I've seen a liberal pundit on a morning talkshow?
Everytime I turn one on.
I'll look into the link periodically. Thanks for providing it.
Could you name me 3 liberal pundits frequenting the national talkshow circuit? I can think of one off hand--katrina vandenheuval. What I usually see comprising these panels is a rightwing pundit, a moderate right wing pundit and a moderate.
-
Some studies….
http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/pdf/BiasBasics.pdf
That study proves liberal bias, not by looking at the work product (the news produced) but by innuendo. Why look at these surveys....there are reporters that claim to be liberal....thus their work product must be biased. I don't think that's good enough. I also think that innuendo is dead wrong.
Proof of bias…
http://www.mediaresearch.org/archive/nq/welcome.asp
This 'liberal media' nonsense started with Spiro Agnew defending the criminal Nixon administration. I guess he needed a punching bag to divert attention from the fact that Nixon was a crook, so he invented the liberal media.
Unfortunately this plays to the right wing notion that any opinion at odds with the right wing opinion is liberal. In the rightwing universe, there is no moderate. You are either with them or against them. And as we've seen, that's a fatally flawed perspective.
To me, it makes no sense to have a slavish uniformity of opinion. That's what the rightwing wants. Any straying from the party line must be the work liberally biased reporting influencing public opinion.
The way I see it, the media are lazy and incompetent. The media play to the bottom line. And for bias, there is a definite conservative media apparatus, namely the Rupert Murdoch/Clearchannel entities which cheerleads unashamedly for conservatives instead of reporting.
Does liberally biased reporting happen? Sure. Is it the industry standard? Not even close.
I also don't think that corporate control is suspended for Big Media. That rule of top down control is a key feature to the modern corporation....except in the Media where reporters are allegedly really running the business. Every other corporation (outside of employee owned corps) follows the rule of top down control....the CEO calls the shots ala Jack Welch and GE....except with the US's media.
Can you see how someone might have a problem believing the liberals run the media with just that information?
-
So why are most journalists liberal?
Is reporting news a liberal thing?
-
So why are most journalists liberal?
Is reporting news a liberal thing?
I think they are like most americans. If liberal means supporting Social Security as it is, avoiding wars of choice, having a medicare safetynet, an educated citizenry based on science/math/reading and not religious indoctrination, etc., then the average american is liberal.
Many of those big ideas clash with rightwing gospel. It's not as simple as I portrayed b/c each of those issues carries complexities/issues not amenable to either camp of thought in a clearcut way.
As for reporting being a liberal thing, the common defense is that they have more diverse exposure/relationships attendant to the job. How do you write an expose on gay marriage? Talk to the gays. Maybe that sort of exposure gives them a perspective lost on others.
-
Right now the alleged "Liberal Media" is putting McCain's VP choice ahead of the aftermath of Obama's speech and the DNC.
If it was a "liberal" media wouldn't they be putting McCain's VP second?
Why are they?
becuase McCain's VP choice IS NEWS!
That's what hte media does....report NEWS that SELLS (get viewers)
the liberal media idea is right up there with 9/11 CT'ers and moon bots.
-
Right now the alleged "Liberal Media" is putting McCain's VP choice ahead of the aftermath of Obama's speech and the DNC.
If it was a "liberal" media wouldn't they be putting McCain's VP second?
Why are they?
becuase McCain's VP choice IS NEWS!
That's what hte media does....report NEWS that SELLS (get viewers)
the liberal media idea is right up there with 9/11 CT'ers and moon bots.
That's a great point. Don't you see Karl Rove's fingerprints all over this? I'm surprised we didn't have an elevation in the color-coded terror alert as well.
-
I watched CNN and Fox this morning after the announcement. Could not have been more contrasted. The CNN folks were befuddled. They "reporter" was saying she didn't know how Palin would be able to hold up against Biden in a debate, how she would be able to answer his extensive foreign policy experience, how she would be able to raise her infant while in the White House, etc., etc. I was literally laughing out loud.